Slashdot Mirror


What Would You Do As President?

With the elections continually in the news there is constant discourse on what each candidate has done or will do. However, rarely do people get the chance to say what they would do. Here is your chance, you have been elected President of the US (god help us all), what items go to the head of the class and how would you handle them?

1,455 comments

  1. well.. by gangien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    call up Ron Paul and ask him what he'd do, and probably do that :P. I imagine starting with getting all our military home, would be one of the first few things.

    1. Re:well.. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 0

      "Okay ... okay ... got it. Sounds good. Wait, now, just so we're on the same page, remind me again what a 'wetback' is?"

      j/k I actually head a Ron Paul Meetup group, despite my reservations about some of his positions and the haze regarding the old Ron Paul newsletter.

    2. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree, except that I'd do everything the Ron Paul said except for the crazy stuff that makes no sense.

      Not trying be totally flamebait here, I agree with SOME of his ideas but his nutty NAFTA conspiracy theories and the whole dissolving the IRS idea, and of course cutting us off from the rest of the world are way out there.

      The common sense things that he agrees with like having a balanced budget, and bringing our troops home I completely agree with. Oh ya and repealing the Patriot Act, I do have to give him points for being one of the few candidates who want to do that, but his motives I disagree with.

    3. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Execute all the Paul-tards. Humanity needs fewer retards. Then I'd be all hypocritcal and morally suspect like Ron Paul, and rape the economy by re-introducing the gold standard.
      You should probably find out where that execution line starts. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
    4. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't buy into the smear. Even the President of the Austin, TX branch of the NAACP came out in support of Ron Paul and said that he has known him for 20 years and he knows that he isn't a racist.

    5. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Alright smart ass... If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention? How come all of the people throwing accusations at Ron Paul are white, tie wearing, political types? How come the strongest attack is coming from The New Republic, a neo-conservative online magazine? Why is it that even Wolff Blitzer on CNN said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "You're right Ron Paul, I've known you for a while now and those newsletters really don't sound like your words. I've never heard you say anything like that."?? Yet despite that, why did CNN then turn around and on the Anderson Cooper show, only repeat the allegation and out of 5+ minutes worth of quotable material from Ron Paul, why did they only use the few seconds worth of him saying that he didn't write the letters surrounded by a bunch of contextual spin to imply that his denial makes him guilty?

      The charges are baseless bullshit. The South Carolina primary is coming up. It is being touted as the "indicator of the black vote". Ron Paul has more support among the African American community than any other Republican candidate. It's telling that the information is coming out right now.

      Of course you posted AC. You're a worthless chicken shit who can't even associate himself with the slander that you're throwing around. Go fuck yourself.

    6. Re:well.. by Retric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is my personal to 10 list.

      1. Quickly end the war.
      2. Limit military spending to 3 times any other country. (Saving ~428 billion a year.)
      3. Fiber to the home. Every home.
      4. Remove the income limit on SS / Medicare taxes. (It's the #1 reason why the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the super rich and the reason SS is having trouble in the first place.)
      5. Invest in proven solar / wind systems that are close to the break even point. (EX: Solar hot water systems and wind farms.)
      6. Fund mass transit.
      7. Limited universal healthcare (90% coverage up to 10k per person per year.)
      8. Increased regulation of the home lending market.
      9. Limit maximum APR on any form of lending to 15% over inflation so credit card's are limited to around 17.5% APR / year.
      10. Fund ITER and other large science projects.

    7. Re:well.. by Linux_ho · · Score: 4, Funny

      call up Ron Paul and ask him what he'd do

      Now that's leadership.

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
    8. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I cannot speak for him, I doubt the grandfather is referring to that.

      Ron Paul supports opposing immigration with force which is morally unacceptable. Moreover, he does so in a particulary despisable way, implying that "breaking the law" is intrisically evil, invoking concepts of collective responsibility, etc.

      There's a very un-sane cult of personality around Ron Paul. By tying good ideas and bad ideas into a person the good ideas will definitely suffer by association.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    9. Re:well.. by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you say his newsletters were forged for him and signed by his subordinates for the last 20 years without him even reading them? Is that how he plans to run America? Maybe he can hire his Stormfront friends to run domestic policy for him, and sign the bills in his name.

    10. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And after doing that, I (and Ron Paul) would probably consider the following:

      1. Abolish the IRS
      2. Abolish the Federal Reserve
      3. Abolish the Department of Education
      4. Abolish the FCC
      5. Abolish social security
      6. Abolish medicare

    11. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the EU started as the European Economic community....

    12. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The head of the NAACP in Texas...come on isn't that a little like being the Head of the Committee for Jewish Relations in Nazi Germany? You've never been to Austin, have you? It's kind of ironic that the capital of Texas is the one city that is the least similar to the rest of the state. It's easily the most liberal city in the state by a wide margin.
    13. Re:well.. by Basehart · · Score: 1

      So I take it you're rooting for Ron Paul?

    14. Re:well.. by DrXym · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you have as much chance of being president as he does.

    15. Re:well.. by magarity · · Score: 1

      his nutty ... dissolving the IRS idea
       
      I assume you mean the Fair Tax. Which isn't his idea (although I hear he supports it) and isn't "nutty". Alas there are too many special interests with a finger in the pie of special deductions who will tell you all kinds of lies about how bad the FT is. Except for the 'but what about MY deduction' there are no good arguments against the FT.
       
      Although not running, if elected I will serve, and the Fair Tax would be my #1 priority.

    16. Re:well.. by Sancho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I was the President, I'd do 1 and 2. The rest of what you've suggested aren't powers allocated to the president, so he can't do them (though he can try to convince Congress to do them.)

      If I was the President, I'd try to return the Executive branch back to its Constitutional roots.

    17. Re:well.. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention? How come all of the people throwing accusations at Ron Paul are white, tie wearing, political types?
      Keeping their powder dry.
      In the game-theoretical match being played out, RP only becomes valuable to the left if they can succeed in getting him the nomination.
      If RP gets the nomination, stand by for Jesse and Al to come at you all ahead flank-3, main engines in battle-override.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    18. Re:well.. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      That's it, I'm moving to America!

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    19. Re:well.. by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ugh, enough. I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul myself, but "oppose immigration with force" is misleading, at best. It's illegal immigration he's against, and quite frankly, I agree with him. There's nothing wrong with having a process to get into this country and become a citizen.

    20. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you dig into the issue a little bit more you will realize that the remarks were made during a very short period of time, spanning maybe a year or two. According to what Paul has said, that was a time of transition in the newsletter and he wasn't at all involved in the day to day operations. They had to go all the way back to 1996 to dig up dirt, and it wasn't even new dirt, it was rehashed old dirt. Like I said, if it's such a big deal, where are Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton? Look at it this way, do you think that Jimmy Dean personally inspects all of the sausage that goes out under his name? Maybe Sara Lee really comes up with all of the recipes for her desserts too.

      Over the last couple of years I've heard all sorts of main stream candidates claim to not have read the intelligence reports before voting to go into Iraq. I've heard candidates claim to have not read the PATRIOT Act before voting for it. What's the big deal about some newsletters? You're a complete tool if you let this bias you against Ron Paul. He's the only candidate from both parties who has any clue about what is going on with the economy and our foreign policy. He is the only candidate out there who is being honest with the American people. He is on the record numerous times talking about how the War on Drugs unfairly targets minorities. His record speaks for itself.

    21. Re:well.. by aminorex · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would be wrong. Ron Paul doesn't associate with Stormfront, firstly; The New York Times was forced to publish a retraction on that claim when it was disproven. Secondly, you're pretending that a single incident was extended over a period of decades. In fact, Paul dismissed the editors involved, directly upon being informed of the objectionable content.

      It's a transparent smear.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    22. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks for making my point. Ron Paul's stance on immigration has been breeding the worst kind of legal positivism. Illegal immigration is illegal because the federal government decided it was. Just because the fed govt says something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. No amount of bold or italic on the word "illegal" is going to change that. And why the hell can't Ron Paul fans understand that immigration != naturalization. Who said anything about becoming a citizen ?

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    23. Re:well.. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Abolish" is not in the realm of the possible.
      Now, one could start an education campaign to build popular support for weening ourselves off the federal nanny-state opium. Say that around 2020, all of the services where the federal government knows too much about individual citizens (SSA, IRS, Medi-x) are completely delegated to the states, and they have between now and then to absorb the records, arrange for staffing, and implement the policies.
      Of course, such a net increase in civic responsibility would be a system shock to the lumpen proletariat, who would call you Moses and ask why you dragged them off the couch and away from the Wii to die in the desert of details, and couldn't they just go back to their metaphorical Egypt?
      More seriously, you can't just flip a switch and disenfranchise those who've been honestly playing along these decades--this is two wrongs not achieving righteousness. There really has to be a transition plan, and one skillful salesperson to convince the bulk of the people.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    24. Re:well.. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention?

      Could it be they prefer race baiting candidates who actually matter? The lack of Jackson and Sharpton tell everything one needs to know about Dr. Paul's chances. Those two are nothing if not masters of knowing how to use/abuse the mass media. Even they realize that attacking Paul is a waste of time because he isn't even accepted by the Republicans well enough to make their usual "see how bigoted all Republicans are?" attack. That Paul is either a bigot or a fool is self evident to anyone reading what went out under his name for decades but he is so irrelevant that even professional race pimps know making an issue of it would only bring name recognition to someone currently even more insignificant than themselves. Their usual game is to attack someone famous/infamous and create a huge media circus that they can then attach themselves leechlike to and suck media attention from it. But the Ronulans would probably suck more attention since they care not for public condemnation, just more opportunities to flog the troofer URLs in front of TV cameras.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    25. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 1

      It isn't going to matter. Ron Paul is such a long shot that he probably won't come anywhere near the nomination. If he pulls down more than 200 delegates when all is said and done I will be surprised. Your average American wants a nanny state where they aren't accountable for anything. Ron Paul wants to bring the whole house of cards down. He has said so himself. I happen to believe that he is right that the economy is going to tank and we're in for a rough ride ahead. He wants to try to control the fall. All the other candidates seem to have their head in the sand and they're just parrotting the party line, "There is nothing to see here. Don't worry. The Super Bowl will be on soon. Make sure you have a high definition TV to watch it on."

    26. Re:well.. by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 2

      The charges [of racism] are baseless bullshit.

      Let's talk about the underlying issue then.

      Regardless of his own views on race, Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of racist "White Nationalist" groups like Stormfront and the National Alliance. This is because Ron Paul's anti-Federalist agenda would go so far as to gut society's ability to clamp down on violent racist groups. Read the history of the Klan, and you'll understand why their idealogical descendants are so keen on the idea of decimating the Federal government as Paul advocates.

    27. Re:well.. by treeves · · Score: 1

      Thank you for saying that. It's also arguable that Congress has Constitutional authority to do most of the others as well.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    28. Re:well.. by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't really see that I'm making your point. Laws also don't always reflect morality or right and wrong. Every country has proceedures for immigration and there's not wrong with having them. People that come into the country for visits are refered to as expatriats, not immigrants. Good god..

      So you're going to argue that people should come and go to the US as they please? Sorry, I am for minimal government, and not even I would go that far.

      I even said I didn't care for Ron Paul!

    29. Re:well.. by Goaway · · Score: 0, Troll

      "A year or two" is a "very short period of time" now?

    30. Re:well.. by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, Paul dismissed the editors involved, directly upon being informed of the objectionable content.

      Sources on that, please. In none of the discussions about it I've seen has he ever said he did so.

    31. Re:well.. by halivar · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's the big deal about some newsletters? You're a complete tool if you let this bias you against Ron Paul.
      It's yet another sign that Ron Paul is not discriminating enough in who he chooses to associate himself with. A president doesn't rule alone: an administration is run, by and large, by the advisers and cabinet members a president surrounds himself with. I don't like the people who surround Ron Paul.
    32. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 1
      Do you really believe that Ron Paul would be able to truly dismantle the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that serve LEGITIMATE purposes in this society? What are you so worried about? Are you really scared of what could happen without the government there to protect you? Society as a whole has mechanisms to control radical elements. Everything balances itself out in the end. For every back asswards moron who wants white purity there are tens if not hundreds times as many who realize that those ideas are stupid.

      I support Ron Paul because the CIA and other Federal entities do more to threaten my life than they do to protect it. They do more to endanger America than they do to lift it up. The "problem" with freedom is that you need to let people do what they will do. If you don't like white power rallies and propaganda, go ahead and counter them. If you get attacked for it, get those people thrown in jail. If the authorities won't take your side, get the authorities replaced or move somewhere else.

      There is a quote that says something to the effect of, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph over good is for good people to sit around doing nothing." If you have problems with the evil in the world then do something about it, personally. Stop looking to others to make the world the way you want it to be.

    33. Re:well.. by bechthros · · Score: 1

      mod parent informative.

    34. Re:well.. by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's talk for a moment about "fairness". A person doing hot tar roofing earns $9 an hour. Tiger Woods earns $171 a minute for playing golf. Stephen Spielberg earns $632 a minute. Paris Hilton is set for life for doing absolutely nothing of value. Is that a fair rewarding of labor?

      We live in a (mostly) free market economy, and that's generally a good thing. It means that we pay for goods what they're worth. It means we strive to reduce subsidy and get mad when we see it in some form or another. It tends to lead to optimal use of resources. All of this is great, except that it treats people just like another good. The hot tar worker is like sand, available on the cheap, while Tiger Woods and Spielberg are like gold. They're rare, so the market pays more for them, exponentially more, obscenely more. Wages in a free market economy are naturally distributed along an "L" curve. This isn't "fair" in terms of the amount of labor people put in (or even how "smart" they are, or how much risk they were willing to take), but the free market doesn't care about "fairness". It doesn't care about anything. To it, people are just goods.

      Now, while wages may be distributed exponentially, human needs are not. A poor person, buying necessities, has no money left over for luxury. A wealthy person simply cannot buy enough necessities to even dent their luxury budget. And if they did buy necessities for other people, that would be "charitable giving". Our income tax is designed to approximate a tax on luxury; the poor, being unable to spend much on luxury, pay the lowest rate, while the wealthy, unable to spend a significant portion on necessity, pay a luxury rate. And if they give to charity, it's deductable.

      Now, one might argue that a sales tax that directly taxes luxury would be more equitable than an income tax. I'd agree. The problems, however, come in the implementation. Is a $0.30 cent head of cabbage luxury? I doubt anyone would argue that. Okay -- how about a $1.50 pack of buttom mushrooms? A $5.00 pack of Shiitakes? A $60 pack of truffles? How about a beat-up 86 Olds? A 2001 Saturn? A 2007 Prius? A 2008 Lexus? When you look at the big picture, you can't classify the level of luxury based on the category of an object; it really just doesn't work. Sure, some things lend themselves better to luxury taxes -- groceries having no base level of taxation, jewelry having a high level, and so on -- but you can't capture the extreme level of variation within a given field. Hence, the income tax, having brackets for different income levels, fills in the gaps.

      Taxing luxury spending higher than necessity spending is a lot more "fair" than treating people's labor the same way you'd treat a market price for sand versus gold. Flatting out the "L" curve is a lot more "fair" than leaving it in tact. Now, people working harder, taking risks, getting educated, and generally making themselves into the "gold" that the market wants *should* be rewarded. It's only "fair". But it's hard to say that, say, Bill Gates deserves tens of thousands of times the level of reward as a hot tar roofer; it's hard to call that "fairness".

      As for the implications on the economy, people need rewards. Without reward, there's little incentive to improve, little incentive to work harder, little incentive to become that "gold" that the market wants. On the other hand, rewards several tens of thousands of times a hot tar roofer's wage distinctly are *not* required. Let's look at history. Anyone here know what our top income tax brackets were doing our nation's biggest boom time (the end of WWII to the late 1960s)? ~80-90%. We had this staggering level of taxation of the top rungs during this time, and yet the economy took off. Now, most of the credit to our boom belongs to the US being the main undamaged producer of goods after the war. But it's hard to argue that such taxation was some significant impediment. While I wouldn't argue for such extreme bracketting of taxation, in general, I feel the case for bracketted income taxes in terms of fairness is quite solid.

      --
      Tonight's Special: Leg of Salmon
    35. Re:well.. by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't see how any government has any right or business telling who can cross and not cross an imaginary line.

      It doesn't sound like you believe a government has any right to to tell anyone what they can or can't do.

      According to the Webster, an immigrant is a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence. I don't why that would imply citizenship.

      Fortunately Wikipedia explains how the word is actually used: "While human migration has existed throughout human history, immigration implies long-term, legal and permanent residence (and often eventual citizenship) by the immigrants."

      I am arguing that people should go and come as they please as long as they do not trespass on people's property. I am also arguing that the "the US" is by no mean the legitimate property of the US government.

      Well, tough shit. Whether you like it or not, the current boundries of the US are legitimate to everyone else.

    36. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Produce our own oil/ethanol and disengage from middle east.

    37. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 0

      The way I see it in your context, you have two choices. You can elect someone like Ron Paul who surrounds himself with crazy Americans who are answerable to American laws and society. Or you can elect someone like the CFR sponsored candidates (every else) who will surround themselves with crazy anti-Americans like Musharrif and bin Laden.

    38. Re:well.. by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I think that the "Interstate Commerce" clause fits as nicely for most of those as it does for most of the uses.

      So chalk up another thing I'd do--nominate Supreme Court justices who don't like misusing that particular clause.

    39. Re:well.. by joggle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then what? Do you think that by removing government that will automatically 'fix' everything?

      1. Abolish the IRS
        • The IRS raises much of the money the Federal government uses to fund the military, subsidize farmers, scientific research, college education (in the form of grants to Universities and subsidized student loans), etc. So how do you go about solving all of the problems such a drastic measure would cause? Force the thousands of college graduates to double or triple the amount they have to spend on their monthly studen loan bill? Force thousands of others to not even go to college because they would not be able to secure loans without the federal Stafford program? Force millions of people to not have access to medical treatment or medication any longer? Leave thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment overseas because there would no longer be enough money to bring them home?
      2. Abolish the Federal Reserve
        • What the heck would this accomplish? While they aren't great, they definitely serve the purpose for which it was designed--dampen market-driven cycles and try to minimize inflation. Do you wish for a return of runs on the market and severe depressions/recessions?
      3. Abolish the Department of Education
        • All industralized nations in the world have some sort of mechanism of implementing national standards for education. There is a reason for this. While the current D of E could do a much, much better job, I don't see how removing them would fix the problem of low education standards in the US.
      4. Abolish the FCC
        • And what would this solve? The FCC exists because, like water rights, the radio spectrum is a limited resource that cross state boundaries. How can anything other than a federal department regulate such a resource to prevent states from duking it out?
      5. Abolish social security
        • What would you do to compensate the millions of workers who have invested a significant fraction of their income into the program?
      6. Abolish medicare
        • How do you propose to give medical treatment to the poor? Leave it to the states? If it were up each state then richer states such as Massachusetts would surely be OK but others like Alabama and Mississippi would surely have little to no medical treatment for the poor due to the much higher portion of the population that is poor and due to having less tax money in order to pay for such a system. This would just cause poor states to get poorer while rich states would be able to keep some money that would have otherwise gone to the poorer ones to fund the program.

      So in short, if a guy is 70, poor, living off of social security and live in Mississippi, he's screwed and that's fine with you, right? And if the guy was 60, approaching retirement he'd have no choice but to work until he died since there would be no possibility of retirement and living off of social security. In the US Declaration of Independence you will find the phrase: " All have right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". How the heck can one do this if they were unlucky enough to be born poor and have no hope of attending college to be eligible for better jobs and not be able to afford their own health care?

      The government exists to solve problems people cannot solve on their own. Removing the current solutions provided by the government without offering any alternative seems ridiculous from my point of view. By abolishing all of the functions of government you mentioned you will surely 'fix' what ever problem created by these programs. However, each program was formed to solve other problems that will now need to be redressed and would surely cause additional problems due to the strong rippling effect it would have on the rest of government.

    40. Re:well.. by Spillman · · Score: 1

      If I were president, I'd eat peaches. Millions of peaches! That would help the economy by creating new jobs in the peach canning industry. :P

      --
      sig?
    41. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like you believe a government has any right to to tell anyone what they can or can't do.

      Of course it has, just like I do, just as everyone does. No more no less. Of course that removes any "right" to tax.

      Wikipedia...

      I'll trust the Webster. Besides even Wikipedia says "often". This is - often - the case because the governments will generally prevent you from staying if you don't become a citizen. A funny, but mostly irrelevant, conclusion of this is that the US constitution does not really allow the limitation of immigration. Not that I care for the constitution, but RP does, so he faces a big contradiction.

      Though shit... Why is it when I discuss the morality of the state, people always fall back to : it's reality live with it. Sure it is, but how does that invalidate my normative point? Besides, murder and rape may be legitimate to many people, that doesn't make them so.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    42. Re:well.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In politics, you can pretty much tell who is X by who is accusing others of X! For example, Shrub is an authentic war coward (daddy may have been near danger but Bush wasn't even present for his entire term of service) and Kerry is an authentic war hero who jumped out of a boat under live fire to chase an enemy combatant carrying a rocket launcher. Yet Kerry was painted as a coward who chased down a boy who had a "possibly unloaded" rocket launcher (BTW, it was definitely loaded) and it was just one more blow that could not be sustained.

      In some cases, of course, it's not quite so simple - you need the secret decoder ring. For instance, those accusing persons of communism during the period we now refer to as "McCarthyist" were not communists but fascists.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    43. Re:well.. by VinitAdhopia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd give up the US' UN veto. The US has clearly shown it is unable to use the veto in an honest and ethical manner.

    44. Re:well.. by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Regardless of his own views on race, Ron Paul is the hated candidate of just about everyone in the government. This is because Ron Paul's anti-Federalist agenda would go so far as to gut the governments's ability to clamp down on any groups it doesn't like, right or left."

      Fixed that for you. "Society" can clamp down on radical groups just fine. I don't want the GOVERNMENT clamping down on anybody because of what they say, radical left or right.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    45. Re:well.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't see how any government has any right or business telling who can cross and not cross an imaginary line.

      The right comes from a mandate from the masses, who declare their support (or lack thereof) for such an action by hiring representatives who feel as they do. Well, theoretically anyway.

      According to the Webster, an immigrant is a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence. I don't why that would imply citizenship.

      Because by the laws of our country that is required by law.

      I am arguing that people should go and come as they please as long as they do not trespass on people's property. I am also arguing that the "the US" is by no mean the legitimate property of the US government.

      I would argue that you are espousing a particularly silly and even half-assed point of view.

      Believing that private citizens should own land but that governments should not have any dominion over it is inconsistent at best.

      The government is supposedly by and for the people. It exists to do their will, again, supposedly. The idea behind restricting immigration is that unchecked immigration leads to crime, including trespassing. Our society can sustain only so many immigrants before it will collapse. At the same time, it depends on a certain number of them... or it will collapse. It also depends on a certain number of illegals being available as a cheap labor force.

      I would personally say that all concepts of property ownership are ridiculous, and that all land belongs to all of us. I would then further state that all private property ownership is counterproductive to any goal of happiness for all on earth.

      Unfortunately, that is not the goal that the majority work towards. Most are selfish and working only for themselves. That goes for the rich and the poor alike, and as long as that is true, there will be rich and poor.

      The idea that land is "yours" is fucking ridiculous. Anything you do to "your" land affects everyone on the planet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 1
      In politics, you can pretty much tell who is X by who is accusing others of X!

      How does that mesh with what is going on with Ron Paul? I don't think that the people accusing him of being racist are racist themselves. I think they are attacking him because his campaign is picking up momentum going into an important primary. The front page of the New York Times had an article today talking about how the economy is the number one concern of voters and that it now ranks higher than the Iraq War. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who has been talking about the economy consistantly and doing it in such a way that he ties it into the other "issues" like the war in Iraq. In the last debate he tore into the other five candidates and touted himself as the only fiscal conservative running for President. He has the voting record to back it up.

    47. Re:well.. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I happen to believe that he is right that the economy is going to tank and we're in for a rough ride ahead.
      Even the biggest alcoholics sometimes suffer a hangover.
      No one is seriously pursuing a disengagement from the materialist society that has to waste thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on stuff like the Super Bowl.
      What alternative gospel do you have to "eat, drink and be merry"?
      So there is a bit of an economic hangover (particularly if you pay attention to the media and its overlords). Once our shiny new presidential overlord is enshrined, won't they be telling us how much better everything is?
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    48. Re:well.. by xshader · · Score: 1

      You are implying that things that are illegal should just be ignored and not treated as such. In the case of illegal immigration, it is actually something that really harms the US economy and should be handled appropriately. I agree many things that are illegal by the federal government are perfectly moral and have little to no common sense as to why they are the way the are but your grounds in this case are empty. I guess you are one of those that think we should give everyone that somehow crosses the border a free ride on our now sparse national budget and maintain the minimum wage artificially low by keeping an influx of workers that have no say in how low their wages are.

    49. Re:well.. by STrinity · · Score: 2

      If you dig into the issue a little bit more you will realize that the remarks were made during a very short period of time, spanning maybe a year or two. According to what Paul has said, that was a time of transition in the newsletter and he wasn't at all involved in the day to day operations.
      Oh please, would you believe George Bush if he offered an excuse as stupid as that. And even assuming, arguendo, that his version is true, that doesn't bode well for his managerial skills.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    50. Re:well.. by besalope · · Score: 1

      No. It's more like a Forbes style newsletter. Ron Paul founded and then took over editor in chief duties for the newsletter but had others write articles. Look at almost any major publication available and after it gets going the namesake has almost nothing to do with it anymore. As for running the country, if that means he'll spend more time on his actual job instead of hobbies or vacations then I think he'd be able to run the country a hell of a lot better than what we currently have.

    51. Re:well.. by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 1

      Are you really scared of what could happen without the government there to protect you? Society as a whole has mechanisms to control radical elements. Everything balances itself out in the end.

      I see you didn't bother reading the link on the Klan. State and local authorities were entirely ineffective in dealing with them, it took the Feds to bring them down.

      I support Ron Paul because the CIA and other Federal entities do more to threaten my life than they do to protect it. They do more to endanger America than they do to lift it up.

      The CIA is just one agency, I don't see their actions as a compelling argument to get rid of nearly the enitre Federal government. I see them as an argument to get rid of, or at least reign in, the CIA.

      The "problem" with freedom is that you need to let people do what they will do. If you don't like white power rallies and propaganda, go ahead and counter them.

      I'm not saying they shouldn't have freedom of speech, I'm saying they shouldn't have the freedom to act on their ideas.

      If you get attacked for it, get those people thrown in jail. If the authorities won't take your side, get the authorities replaced or move somewhere else.

      Your idea that the answer to racist violence and intimidation is to "just move somewhere else" is akin to saying "let them eat cake".

    52. Re:well.. by STrinity · · Score: 1

      I don't really see that I'm making your point. Laws also don't always reflect morality or right and wrong.
      From a libertarian perspective -- and Paul does claim to be a libertarian -- one does not have to -- and indeed as a moral responsibilit not to -- obey unjust laws.

      Nor is this the only case where Paul takes an un-libertarian stance. He opposes free trade, and spouts conspiracy theories about the North American Union, which puts him in Black Helicopter land.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    53. Re:well.. by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm all for Natural Law as well and I'm against Positivism as the groundwork for a system of justice. The rights of man are intrinsic, not from law. However the idea that a people and a nation governed by representative means cannot then define and control the borders of that nation (so long as it does not involve invasion of other people's nations) is just silly. It's extreme stances like this that lead people to write libertarians off as nut-jobs. Like it or not, protecting the borders of the nation is one of the few legitimate purposes that a government has. Allowing a large group of people to move into your nation and then not allowing them the rights of citizens is even worse. You wind up with a caste society, the exact opposite of what anybody concerned about human rights should want.

    54. Re:well.. by Tony · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize the Canadian Finals Rodeo was so militant.

      Or you can elect someone like the CFR sponsored candidates (every [sic] else) who will surround themselves with crazy anti-Americans like Musharrif and bin Laden.

      Sorry, I really don't know who the CFR is, or whom they represent. So I'm not sure what you're saying here. Honestly. Is that "everyone else," rather than "every else?" The context would seem to indicate that.

      Ah. You mean the Council on Foreign Relations. Those guys are amateurs. It seems all they might desire (according to conspiracy theories) is the union of Canada, the US, and Mexico. That actually sounds like a good idea, as it'll be easier to defend our borders if they don't include thousands of miles of unpopulated wilderness. It'll just about end this whole "illegal alien" stupidity that's being used as a smokescreen to draw discussion from serious issues. Plus, I like Mexican food.

      I see your conspiracy theory, and raise you one. *I* believe our candidates are controlled by the Bilderberg Group. Now, those guys mean business. They want to start with what the CFR proposes, right enough. That that's *just the first step*. They eventually want world domination under guidance of their group of elite industrialists and politicians. They want to put an implant in everyone, and have a giant computer track our every word, our every movement. We would be controlled by a world police answerable only to the Group.

      The CFR doesn't think big enough to scare me.

      Oh, and Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of getting elected if the BG doesn't want him. They already control the elections-- witness the actions of the Supreme Court in 2000. That wasn't an arbitrary decision. They too owe their political lives to the BG.

      Personally, I've had a Chuck Norris conspiracy theory since *well* before it was popular. (Who studied with Bruce Lee? Who trained Elvis? Think about it.) He seems to have a strange control over Ron Paul. *That* scares the hell out of me.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    55. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      You guess wrong. I don't think we should give a dime of tax receipts to the immigrants.

      Overall, I do think immigration, especially illegal immigration benefit the economy but even if it didn't, or actually harmed it - like it does in other country with high welfare - that wouldn't justify stopping immigration. The state alone is responsible for the harm done through taxation. The fact that immigration can make this harm more intense does not mean the immigrants are morally responsible for the harm and thus it is illegitimate to oppose them on this ground.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    56. Re:well.. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      If he weren't dead, I think you'd be better off asking Harry Browne what he'd do...

    57. Re:well.. by STrinity · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean the Fair Tax. Which isn't his idea (although I hear he supports it) and isn't "nutty"
      The Fair Tax is regressive -- the poor end up paying a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the rich. There are all sorts of plans for rebates and prebates to lessen the burden, but that's just getting rid of Complex System 1 in favor of Complex System 2. Why? Because supporters call it "Fair" -- and we know that politicians never stick misleading titles on programs.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    58. Re:well.. by mdozturk · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul supports opposing immigration with force which is morally unacceptable.

      Interesting. Lets say you just flew into a foreign country, they asked you for a passport and you said "fuck you" and just walked through the checkpoint. Wouldn't that behavior create a physical response (i.e. a border guard at the airport would physically stop you)? How is that physical response immoral? Are you really against Ron Paul or are you against borders in general?

    59. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      The silly idea is that people who win a popularity contest get to decide who can or cannot cross an arbitrary line. Please explain how this make sense from the point of view of natural law.

      About not granting immigrants a citizenship status, well... citizenship may be the only thing a government can legitimately grant or deny, like a club membership. And there are no "citizen rights", as you said rights are intrinsic.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    60. Re:well.. by DeepZenPill · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul fans largely don't agree with him on every issue, but they agree with him on several important issues that are ignored by almost every other candidate. Ron Paul is actually for increasing quotas and reducing barriers to immigration, but he sticks to his belief that the law must be obeyed and there be disincentives to breaking it.

      Personally I'm for much more liberal immigration laws and some form of amnesty, but I'm not going to allow that to overshadow my agreement that we must stop American Imperialism and protect economic and civil liberties. I'm also pro-NAFTA and WTO where RP is against both, but when faced with a choice of other protectionist candidates, I'm going to go with Ron Paul.

      Unfortunately one area the Ron Paul campaign fails miserably is communicating the fact that he will not be able to do a fraction of the things he wants to do as President. It's not that he doesn't understand this, he's been in Congress long enough and knows the role of the President is not that of a lawmaker, but he's got too many big ideas to expound on and never gets down to the nitty gritty when speaking. I think this hurts him a great deal with your average voter because people want to see practical steps. When people are confronted with the idea of abolishing behemoths like the IRS and the Fed, even if it was possible, they see it as too monumental of a task to believe it's possible.

      If he talked about these grand ideas and gave concrete steps towards their realization, he wouldn't be regarded as such a whacko, because these ideas do have a lot of traction when they're put in a practical context.

    61. Re:well.. by halivar · · Score: 1

      Except the questionable material was in a newsletter had his signature at the end (whether forged or not, who knows?), and contained first-person references to himself and his wife. The clear intention is that the reader believe that Ron Paul wrote it.

    62. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 1
      The CIA is just one agency, I don't see their actions as a compelling argument to get rid of nearly the enitre Federal government. I see them as an argument to get rid of, or at least reign in, the CIA.

      No one is going to be able to dismantle the Federal government. It's here to be the monkey our backs whether we like or not. Ron Paul is the only candidate out there talking about actually shrinking the government in size. Everyone else either wants it to be bigger or just pays lip service to the idea of a smaller government to court the voters who think that shrinking the government is a good idea.

      At the end of the day you have to make a choice. Either you want freedom and accept that people need to be free to make mistakes. Or you want a big brother who tells you what you can and can't do and claims to know what is good for you. I happen to lean more toward freedom, maybe because I'm a white guy with a good job who treats those around him well. I understand that there are those lean the other way and I understand in some cases why they do so. I think you're crazy if you think that the judicial system as manifest in the Federal government does a good job of protecting minorities from discriminatory law enforcement priorities like the war on drugs.

    63. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're trying to pretend that the EU is an example of some "slippery slope" in real life, you can forget it. The EEC was the first step towards the modern EU, but the modern EU was an overt goal from the very start. The people who created the EEC were open and frank that their ultimate goal was greater unification. There was no hidden agenda and no scope creep - everyone knew from the start where things were going.

    64. Re:well.. by crosson · · Score: 1

      I like your #4, the political spin against you would be "my opponent wants to tax ALL of everyones income"!

    65. Re:well.. by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      The party will come to an end, in our lifetime:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE

    66. Re:well.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What I do to my land may very well affect everyone, that doesn't mean I don't have ownership of it. Property rights exist to settle dispute arising from the scarcity of resources. A property right merely mean that should a dispute arise over the use of the resource, I should have the legitimate claim for it. Your view is half-assed as it completely ignore the existence of conflicts.

      Wait, you're saying that we don't need the government to handle conflicts, but you're telling me that I'm ignoring the existence of conflicts? The government is there to handle the cases in which the will of the people conflict as well as it is there to handle the cases in which that will is more or less universally aligned.

      To assert that the will of the people does not exist is ridiculous. It is not uniform; neither are our own wills.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    67. Re:well.. by jhantin · · Score: 1

      9. Limit maximum APR on any form of lending to 15% over inflation so credit card's are limited to around 17.5% APR / year.

      While I'm as annoyed as the next guy with credit card rates, I don't think usury laws help any. Instead you get a whole mess of creative dodges, from the old contractum trinius to replacing interest with high transaction and account maintenance fees. Meanwhile, desperate people with bad credit are simply frozen out of the legitimate market and driven to illegal loan sharks.

      Inflation at 2.5%? USDX has been walloped over the past year suggesting a ~12% inflation rate, rather at variance with the 2-3% CPI creep.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    68. Re:well.. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I don't see how a government can legitimately claim a dominion about property I own. How can they hold property rights if it's my property?

      What makes it your property ? What if I claim ownership to something you also claim overship to ? Who decides which one of us it belongs to ? Whoever that is, has de facto dominion over the piece of property in question; after all, it was that entity - which, for the sake of simplicity, we might call government - which validated and enforced your or mine claim on said property.

      Deny the idea that government has dominion over your property and you are also denying the very concept of property itself. You'll still have possessions, of course, but no property; nothing can belong to you legally if there are no laws, and laws only have meaning if they can and will be enforced.

      Differentiating between property and possessions might seem like pedantry, but there is in fact a fundamental difference. Property is yours by right; the society is backing your claim to it, in accordance to certain rules (laws), and anyone trying to take it from you in violation of these rules is punished by the society in accordance to these laws. On the other hand, possessions are yours by might; nothing backs your claim to them besides your own ability to enforce this claim by force. If anyone manages to take them, his claim to them is just as valid as yours was; in fact it is propably more valid, since by overcoming you he proved himself to be more capable of backing his claims by force.

      Notice my usage of the word "society" instead of "government" in the preceding paragraph. The government is simply the governing body of the society; it is not something separate from it, nor can there ever be a society without a government, be that government the US Congress, the tribal chieftain, the council of elders, old farmer Smith who has authority because everyone respects him, or anything else.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    69. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how a government can legitimately claim a dominion about property I own. How can they hold property rights if it's my property? Because there's no property right except that which is granted by the government. Without the government to enforce your right to ownership of something, there would be no property except that which you could defend yourself. Whether that's a good or bad thing is debatable.
    70. Re:well.. by cc_pirate · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! Good points..

      --

      "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    71. Re:well.. by eronious · · Score: 1

      Nicely thought out! Especially 4,5,6,9 and I like the idea of everyone having equal access to information. it should be free.

    72. Re:well.. by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Self defense. First rule of natural law is not just keeping your rights intact, but it is also about survival. You do not have to wait to be attacked to attack so long as their is a credible threat to your survival. Doing away with any form of organized defense and ignoring the truth that geographical dominance is integral to being able to defend yourself against large scale threats such as war or invasion (even peacable) is suicide.

      In other words our government is presumably our mechanism by which we secure protection of our rights. (Granted, this is changing and badly so, but that is another matter.) One requirement for this to happen is that we be able to defend ourselves. Now, it's nice to imagine that a bunch of independent and scattered people living on their land in an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia could do this, but I don't buy it. Once a large enough group of people who don't hold to your ideals have moved in and they have sufficient numbers and are scattered through your 'nation' and they decide to change things, you don't have a say anymore. Let alone what happens if you face an actual invasion by an organized army when you've gotten rid of such things in pursuit of utopia.

      I'll embrace concepts like Anarcho-Capitalism and borderless states when technology exists that allows a man to be an island onto himself. When I can guard myself and my plot of land against an organized force many, many times more massive and well funded. Until that time comes and geographical mastery is no longer an aspect of armed conflict, I'll live with nation states protecting their borders as a necessity to survival.

      I believe that philosophy exists to serve man, not vice-versa. Natural Law can lead us to a much better place the Positivism. But like all abstractions, it leaks. This is one place where it leaks. Getting rid of borders, at least in todays world (and maybe forever), leads to likely death and slavery. If most of the world embraced the ideals of Natural Law then it wouldn't be an issue. But it doesn't and it is. Allowing yourself to be surrounded and intersected many times over by people who think Natural Law is a bunch of BS or who have never even ran into the concept before and then expecting they will leave you alone instead of forcing their own philosophy on you is naive.

      In short, I'll not embrace a philosohy to an extent that it leads to my destruction. I am not a zealot willing to martyr myself for the cause. In any event, I do believe that an argument can be made with Natural Law that when faced with credible threat, seizing the means to defend yourself is justified. Borders are a regrettable necessity. Maybe one day they won't be.

    73. Re:well.. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      call up Ron Paul and ask him what he'd do
      - Now that's leadership.

      And unfortunately, that's still much better than the current administration :(

    74. Re:well.. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Excuse me dave562,
          The Federal Internet Bureau of Usage Standards (FIBUS) has determined that you have exceeded your alloted browsing time for today. You should step back from your PC and check in to the local authorities or we will send the Internet Monitoring Service to come and deactivate your line. Thank you for your cooperation.

      The Feds

      P.S. I agree with you and Ron Paul, but I thought that fit in with the whole idea of where the nanny government is going: Us taxpayers being ripped a new one so some lazy ass family can ignore their kids/themselves on the net and not accidentally run across something they might not want to see. I truly want him (RP) to have a chance of doing what is needed.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    75. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      It would indeed create an illegitimate physical response, the border guard has no right to stop me as I am not trespassing on anyone's property. Since I did not agress anyone, it is wrong to agress me in return.

      Of course being a practical person I do show my passport and smile at the custom officer, but I shouldn't have to. So, yes, I am against any form of border protection by states.

      While I do believe Ron Paul is the best candidate (let's be serious, no candidate advocates totally open borders I know that), I cannot approve his campaign or his message.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    76. Re:well.. by SomeGuyTyping · · Score: 1

      all the race-pimps you mentioned are Democrats - they would LOVE to run Obama against Ron Paul

      --
      My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    77. Re:well.. by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Where does rewriting history and continuing Bush' attempts to solidify a theocracy in the US come on the list?

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    78. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 0

      Your whole argument is just a spin on "ends justify mean". This is completely opposed to jusnaturalism which is deontological.

      Besides, your hoppean claims that the state is the only way to organize defense are baseless, although even that's irrelevant.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    79. Re:well.. by uncqual · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. Abolish the IRS... response

      The notion here is to create a simpler tax system that does not require the IRS as we know it today. No reasonable person is proposing eliminating all collection of Federal taxes and, hence, some infrastructure to collect those would of course be needed.

      As far as subsidized college loans is concerned (which really has little to do with the IRS)... The free and easy access to student aid is a vicious cycle -- the colleges just raise their tuition to match the available money, making it harder and harder for students who don't quite qualify for aid to get an advanced education. If someone needs a loan for college, let them go out and get one -- let the market decide if pursuing a degree in Ancient Interpretive Literature is likely to result in enough income that the student can pay back the loan. It's not my responsibility as a taxpayer in State X to fund the hobby of another person in State Y. The Feds could perhaps, via the power of the interstate commerce clause, have a role in making the student loan market more viable by making sure that a student can't just jump across the state border to avoid repaying a student loan (existing laws probably deal with this fine but might need some changes).

      2. Abolish the Federal Reserve... response

      Meddling in interest rates, for example, creates it's own set of problems. Recessions are inevitable and not necessarily the worst thing - ask someone who has just lost all the equity (and retirement nest egg) in their house and just got foreclosed on if they could care less if we are not in a recession (yet)? Let the market work it out - yes, it may be volatile at times, but the "propping up" of the system by the Feds results in big bubbles instead of more little ones that burst early. We have a global economy now -- the Fed really can't change that and will be increasingly less able to achieve their goals anyway.

      3. Abolish the Department of Education... response

      Funny, I've never heard the Governor of a state say "We here in Hickstate are too stoopid to figure out how to lurn our kids - we need the Feds to tell us this". Instead it sounds more like "We here in Hickstate want money forcibly extracted from any state but Hickstate to help pay to educate our kids". States are free to band together to share R&D costs of education if they wish to, the Feds are not needed for that and the Constitution doesn't give them the power to IMHO.

      4. Abolish the FCC... response

      Ah, finally something we agree at least partially on -- the allocation of frequencies and technical broadcasting standards seems to fall well within the scope of the interstate commerce clause as RF doesn't respect state boundaries.

      5. Abolish social security... response

      Of course the sunsetting of Social Security will require a staged process so those that have put money into the plan will receive partial benefits and those that are already retired will continue to receive benefits until death. Yes, since the plan is basically bankrupt, there will be some combination of life support (covering shortfalls with general taxation) and benefit reductions during the phase out -- but not as bad if we continue the ponzi scheme for another 30 years. Not pleasant, but better to amputate the gangrenous lower leg now than to wait for the infection to spread up into the torso and internal organs - we infected ourselves with this disease decades ago and our attempts at fighting the infection have failed so drastic action is now needed.

      6. Abolish medicare... response

      Phasing out Medicare would need to be done much the same way as phasing out Social Security would be done -- in a staged fashion. As far as state-to-state disparity - that's life. People are free to migrate from one state to another state to seek a better life and have historically done so in the Unite

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    80. Re:well.. by the+real+higgy · · Score: 0

      Law #1 all lobbyist must do a 2 year stretch in the peace corp outside the USA before allowed to register as a lobbyist. Law #2 All unregistered lobbyist are incarcerated or do a 2 year stretch in the peace corp in a third world country with a current civil war. Law # 3 No family member or descendant of an elected president can ever run for office with out doing a 2 year stretch in the peace corp in a country with a known civil war in progress Law #4 All Federally appointed jurist must provide proof of service in the peace corp. Law # 5 All taxes must be a flat rate for all

    81. Re:well.. by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Whoa, there. The New Republic is a neo-con magazine now? Have you ever read it?

      Are you talking about Kirchick's article? Way to slam an entire middle-left institution based on one writer's editorializing.

      Oh, and they're not just on online magazine; they publish twice monthly. And you might like it.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    82. Re:well.. by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You leave out an important point. The roof taring guy only benefits one person/family/business at a time. Obviously he should be paid less than someone like Tiger Woods who benefits thousands of fans per tournament. Same thing with Spielberg, he benefits millions with his movies. And I don't know what Paris makes, but she entertains more people than the roofer, and besides that, her family benefited a lot of people with their hotels. Basically, a free market helps those who are efficient (benefit the most people) at the cost of the less efficient (benefit one person at a time). Also, these efficient producers pay more taxes in absolute terms than their less efficient counterpart. It's hard to say the roofer isn't being rewarded fairly. Calling entertainment or anything else a luxury doesn't change its benefit. Besides, where should we draw the line? Should we call everything other than food or shelter a luxury? Should high quality/priced food then be a luxury? What about big houses? Or pools? Cars? Maybe everything other than a cardboard box and a bowl of rice should be considered a luxury? Point is, luxury good create wealth just as much as necessities. Would the farmer really care about feeding more than his family if he had nothing to buy with his income?

    83. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1

      And unfortunately, that's still much better than the current administration :(


      In all fairness, even a monkey would be better than the current administration.
    84. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I think my comment to the other poster didn't go through for some reason. I got them confused with the Free Republic. Sorry about that.

    85. Re:well.. by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I think that, at the very least, numbers 3, 5, and 6 should be left to states. Under our current "Super-Strong executive branch-style" gov't, it may be easy to lose sight of states' rights and the true role of the federal gov't.

      Recall the small town in Utah that protested about how much money and equipment it was provided for the War on Terror- they had a tiny population and were in the middle of nowhere. Run fiber to every home, for example, and watch the taxpayers scream about stories of 50 million fiber trunks "to nowhere".

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    86. Re:well.. by WNight · · Score: 1

      If the law somehow allows the racially motivated violence, it shouldn't get in the way of your right to self defense.

      This would require people looking at what was around them and making their own decisions on issues like war and killing that are today the domain of the government. I might not find Iraq to be a war worth fighting, but I might find racial-hatred groups in the south to be. If enough people valued a free society where people weren't targeted for the color of their skin, there'd be an effective force to stop the KKK.

      People wearing sheets make good targets.

    87. Re:well.. by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      I've no mod points to spend on your post, so here's a "well done" for one of the most succinct descriptions of the problems with the "Fair" tax.

    88. Re:well.. by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Just because the fed govt says something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral

      It is wrong or immoral for an uninvited guest to enter your house, no? Or for a guest to your home to not leave if you tell him to do so? So if our populace says, "We only want to allow X number of immigrants into our country this year," isn't it wrong and immoral for someone to come over uninvited? I would say so.

      I'm all for having a healthy amount of immigration, but our system can afford a mass influx of immigrants. Moreover, I'd hope that our country would enact policies to attract immigrants that offer the best bang for the buck, so to speak. Immigrants with education and skills that are needed.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    89. Re:well.. by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      For instance, those accusing persons of communism during the period we now refer to as "McCarthyist" were not communists but fascists.
      I have one word for you, buddy: VENONA.
    90. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      The "populace" does not own the US territory. If one person wants to invite an immigrant in his home that's his problem, the other people have nothing to say about it.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    91. Re:well.. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If you call up Ron Paul, make sure you speak loudly.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    92. Re:well.. by scoobrs · · Score: 1

      3. Fiber to the home. Every home.
      Won't that back up the sewage system?
      --
      -Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
    93. Re:well.. by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 1
      1. The ends can justify the means. It just cannot justify any means.

      2. Self defense is not 'ends justifies the means'. If it is then Natural Law is irrelevant as well and all we are left with is force and might makes right or extreme pacifism as our only two philosophies anyway.

      3. If you're going to say that my argument that maintaining borders is a requirement for survival for a group of people in today's world is wrong, then provide a comprehensive alternative that provides for the defense of everybody that is workable. Don't just say "you're wrong!". That is an admission of defeat.

      4. Saying self defense is irrelevant is right back into that zealotry I talked about. You just made my point for me why libertarians are discounted by so many people. No one is interested in drinking that particular brand of Kook-Aid.

    94. Re:well.. by Sheafification · · Score: 1

      Actually, as Congress has sole power over the budget (i.e. "power of the purse"), the President can only do number 1.

    95. Re:well.. by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      The "populace" does not own the US territory.

      If the populace doesn't own it, who does? You may say, "The Federal government," and that's fine, but who dictates the laws and policies of the Federal government? Officials who were elected by the populace.

      What are you proposing? That anyone can freely move to any country, and no one can say differently? And if that's the case, that someone can come to America without any permission from the government, then why is it that they can use services that my tax dollars help fund? Shouldn't I get a say in what people can use the services my tax dollars fund?

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    96. Re:well.. by Cheapy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Jeez, first reddit turns into ronpaulit, now slashdot too?

      Honestly, the one thing that's keeping me from learning about him is how god damn annoying his supporters are.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    97. Re:well.. by b17bmbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shrub is an authentic war coward (daddy may have been near danger but Bush wasn't even present for his entire term of service)
      actually, Bush I was a WW2 pilot. he flew a TBF bomber on some very dangerous missions over Japanese occupied islands, and was shot down. in fact, one (perhaps both, I don't recall) of his crew was killed on the mission. and when he splashed down, he was in japanese controlled waters and was in very real danger of being captured, tortured and killed. I'd say he was more than "near" danger.

      the difference between between W and Kerry was this: kerry made his wartime service an issue. period. he made it an issue as to his leadership, judgement, etc. and, it wasn't his service, but his anti-war activities that so angered his fellow veterans.

      I'm not a fan of W: his record spending, amnesty, and federalization of damn near everything, plus his gross mismanagement of the Iraq campaign (notice I didn't say Iraq war, which would be like saying the African War or the French War when talking about WW2. there was an African campaign, a Western Campaign, etc. Iraq is one campaign in a very long war we've been in for many many years.). however, he did not make his service an issue in 2000 or 2004.
      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    98. Re:well.. by xeoron · · Score: 1

      10K sounds like a lot for healthcare costs, but it really is not. 1 ambulance ride can cost at least that much.

    99. Re:well.. by Sancho · · Score: 1

      That's a fair point. In practice, though, it seems as though the President asks for money, and Congress gives or denies it. As such, the President can simply ask for less money.

      Oh. Another thing I'd do is veto any bill which includes riders.

    100. Re:well.. by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed that no one is seriously talking about taxing the most important unfairness in society: assets. Paris Hilton inherited so much that she does not have to work, ever, and will still be able to pass on even more to her own heirs.

      I'd like to see a progressive tax on liquid assets such that interest accrued and "asset tax" balance out to a steady state at some arbitrarily large number, perhaps $100 million, but above that amount the tax would exponentially grow such that any assets will be taxed away after say 30 years. So a particularly hard-working entrepreneur might make a billion, but their children will have to keep working hard to maintain that amount. If they decide not to work at it, it will slowly wittle down to be used elsewhere in the economy, but they will still have plenty of money to support a posh lifestyle. After a large fraction of the country finds itself in that "topped-out" state, the bar could be raised a bit to provide incentives for the next generation.

      I call it "financial entropy". I think it would do a lot to bring a sense of fairness into the system.

    101. Re:well.. by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I agree with your point about the campaign failure to communicate the steps. The war on terror is a great example. Ron Paul's belief and one that I tend to agree with is that by withdrawing our troops from the Middle East we will remove a huge source of recruiting propaganda for the Islamic militants. The problem is that he doesn't take the next logical step. He doesn't explain to people how they will be safer. He doesn't explain what will be done to counter-balance all of the negative karma that we've built up over there. In some ways he is almost taking up the Democrat, "anything but Bush" chant. He is a good communicator and a much better than average communicator. Unfortunately he is not a great communicator and he does not seem to have anyone on his staff who is either. Ron Paul has tapped into a lot of half formed ideas, and I'm sure that many of them are fully formed in his own mind but without directed questioning from friendly moderators in some sort of debate like format, those ideas will never be manifest in any sort of meaningful way that will allow potential voters to properly absorb them.

    102. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      Who owns you computer and mine ? No one ! I own mine, you own yours. Similarly, the US territory is just a patchwork of individual properties.

      If people who come use services that where funded by your tax dollar, you should ask yourself : why isn't that tax dollar in my pocket in the first place! If your mugged and the mugger spends the money on alcohol, don't blame the liquor store!

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    103. Re:well.. by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      If I were president, I'd eat peaches. Millions of peaches! That would help the economy by creating new jobs in the peach canning industry. :P
      Mod parent up +funny! If you don't get it, check here.
    104. Re:well.. by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to leave. Using arguendo in a sentence, correctly, is not appropriate to this forum. Take your dirty Latin elsewhere.

    105. Re:well.. by Skim123 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, yes, in theory the country is a patchwork of individual land, but we both know better that that doesn't work in practice. And if you became the US Supreme Dictator and could enact such silliness, I would promptly buy the land on all sides of your's and threaten to shoot you for trespassing if you tried to leave your residence, just to make my point.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    106. Re:well.. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Funny, I've never heard the Governor of a state say "We here in Hickstate are too stoopid to figure out how to lurn our kids - we need the Feds to tell us this". Instead it sounds more like "We here in Hickstate want money forcibly extracted from any state but Hickstate to help pay to educate our kids". States are free to band together to share R&D costs of education if they wish to, the Feds are not needed for that and the Constitution doesn't give them the power to IMHO.

      Yes, some States could band together to share the costs of education, maybe even a whole host of other things. They could start sharing other things too, like funds for developing militias (and even training them together), social services, delegations to other countries to try to advance the collectives goals throughout the world. They could set standards for food safety and a whole host of other issues. Hmmm, I wonder what that collective entity could call themselves. They are a collection of States in America. The Collected States of America? Nah, I'll think of it later...

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    107. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      "but we both know better that that doesn't work in practice" ? Oh really ? Please be more specific...

      Even if you bought all the land surrounding mine, and good luck with that, I'd still have homesteaded a right to the path outside of my own that the previous owner couldn't reclaim and transfer you.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    108. Re:well.. by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Informative
      People with that level of wealth have opportunities that the average high-income professional (who isn't, generally, very wealthy) doesn't. As a doctor, I will certainly have a high income, but I have incurred significant debt to do so and won't earn more than a pittance until age 35 (yeah, I didn't go straight to med school from college). The situation is similar (though not quite as extreme) for a lot of lawyers - although our incomes are high, the tax system is very good at capturing income and doesn't seem to care that I spent eight years living on a shoestring in order to earn that money (I can't, for example, go back and retroactively fund my IRA for those eight years.).

      If you have a billion dollars, though, you can pretty easily set up a nonprofit foundation that - oh so coincidentally - employs your descendants to do a lot of not very difficult jobs for rather more than competitive salaries. Maybe there can be foundation-owned housing they can live in rent-free - again, only available to family members. Once you own the properties, you'd be surprised how little it takes to live on.

    109. Re:well.. by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      On the subject of WWII, Japan, and "What would you do as President?" --
      A couple of years ago I was teaching an especially bright Korean girl who was in seventh grade. When asked what she wanted to be when she grew up, she said that she wanted to be a diplomat or president or something similar. It was an intriguing answer, so I followed up with "Why? How do you want to make the world a different place?"

      "I want to use nuclear bombs to destroy all of Japan and kill all the Japanese" was her deadpan answer.

      I was slackjawed.

    110. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1
      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    111. Re:well.. by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the one thing that's keeping me from learning about him is how god damn annoying his supporters are.

      Sort of like Apple, the Greatful Dead, and Jesus.

      --saint

    112. Re:well.. by Retric · · Score: 1

      My last ambulance ride took 1 hour and cost 350$. Heath care tends to be overpriced due to billing issues. AKA lot's of people don't pay which drives the costs up for the uninsured.

      "The practice was publicized in a New York Times article about a young woman without health insurance, who found herself owing over $14,000 to a hospital for a 2-day stay resulting from an appendectomy. This amount did not include doctors' fees. This same hospital receives around $2,500 from HMOs, $5,000 from Medicaid (the government program for the poor), and $7,500 from Medicare (the government program for the elderly) for the same operation and 2-day stay."

      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2003_July/ai_104259129

      The point of 10k of basic coverage is to prevent this type of treatment.

    113. Re:well.. by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Even if you bought all the land surrounding mine, and good luck with that, I'd still have homesteaded a right to the path outside of my own that the previous owner couldn't reclaim and transfer you.

      Outside to where? If the country is a patchwork of private property, your land has to end at another person's property, or an international border, or some natural landmark, like an ocean or river or lake, no?

      I consider myself a libertarian, so I understand and appreciate your perspective. But I've also been around the block enough times to know that many of the "pure libertarianism" ideals just won't work in reality, where there is more gray than black and white, where people (even judges and elected officials) are not always truthful or kind or honest, and where there are many situations in which both sides can be in the right.

      For starters, you talk about private property, but how is ownership granted? Don't you need some concept of land that is innately owned by the government? And then this deed is sold to a private individual? I mean, there has to be some initial condition, some starting point, where the land is owned by SOMEONE, right, otherwise how is it now under your ownership? And who gets to decide where that initial condition rests? You may say that your property is yours because you bought it, but I may say that the guy you bought it from bought it from someone else, who bought it from someone else, who got the land from my great-great-great-great-grandfather, a Native American chief whose tribe was situated on that land. So whose land is it? Your's? Mine? My great-great-great-great-grandfather's? And if it is your's, who or what gave you the authority to claim it as your own?

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    114. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul is also the favorite candidate among black republicans.

      Does this mean that Ron Paul is secretly a black?

      Because that is the same argument you are making in stating he is racist because a few groups that are racist are supporting him.

    115. Re:well.. by maraist · · Score: 1

      I don't think usury laws help any.
      Personally I could care less if someone wants to go to a Loan shark.. They STILL do this when their credit is shot. The point is that when people go to a loan shark, they KNOW they're putting their life on the line.. When people max out 28% credit cards (because they absolutely can't find another way to make a payment), they're basically ending their life at 35. Even bankruptsy doesn't get them out of many types of debt. People don't understand simple math.. That taking out these large credit rates are only prolonging the inevitable.. But more damagingly.. They STILL BUY CRAP!!! If they they get a $1,000 extension on a credit card, they'll think it's free money and burn it! Nobody wants to take their holiday bonus and pay down their existing debts. They simply don't understand math. They're in denial about the end of their middle-class life-styles.

      Consider that we're in a major crisis, that people in high risk categories are a big part of the credit defaulting market - it's not just the home mortgages that are collapsing the banks around us.

      Limiting high interest rates doesn't really hurt the banks, because they're never going to see that money from many people no matter what.. There's only a small group that will EVENTUALLY pay their debts off that the 28% is going to bring actual profits for. But instead, it can REDUCE the number of consumer bankrupsties that WILL occur across the industry. Granted most people in that horrendous category are already limited by new bankruptsy law.

      Free markets are great, and black markets WILL intervene to fill in the gaps.. But many banks are in denial about their solvency, and they can only make local optimizations in their cash flow.

      Consider the worst case for a segment of consumers:

      If you already have a credit card at 28%, you're NOT going to get a new one anyway.. So your being a credit risk doesn't hurt you any further. The mandate would help this segment (again reducing the number of actual defaults by some small percentage).

      If you're an average joe and miss your credit payment, the credit company will automatically push you to the highest legal value. And in fact, to average out profits, the prime rate will likely rise (or cards will base themselves off a higher offset of prime), so well-meaning middle-class will get hurt somewhat by this. But you're NOT SUPPOSED TO PAY INTEREST anyway. Interest is supposed to be a short-term debt of no more than a couple months to tide you over. Making bad life decisions that produce persistent credit debt can not go on forever as it is a positive feedback loop.

      Finally, the main issue that needs to be resolved is not the actual interest rate, but the predetory lending. Credit cards that specifically target high risk people, giving them teaser rates that will jump at the first late payment. This sort of thing CAN be regulated easily and still support a relatively free market.

      --
      -Michael
    116. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      I wish I could provide you with a lenghty answer but I have a very long thread to answer to.

      Although you claim to be a libertarian, you think like a legal positivist as if ownership was granted by a government... but how does that government get the right to grant ownership? You're caught in a meaningless loop.

      Property is initially acquired by homesteading, by mixing your labor with the natural resources. After that, property can be given, traded, exchanged etc. Sure, property can be stolen, and maybe the property that you own was stolen in the past, but property is about legitimate claim. Without proof of the contrary, you are the legitimate owner. If the original owner whom the property was stolen from comes and prove that it indeed has a better claim to the property than you, then he should be recognized as the sole owner, otherwise, you have the best claim.

      Why is that so? Because property exists to separate conflicts. If I want to use the field you worked on to plant your crop and you don't want, who's right? Who has the best claim to the property? In this case, the answer is obvious, and that is the principle of private property.

      In a conflict, both sides can not be in the right, the purpose of justice is precisely to separate conflicting claims by finding where the natural property rights sit.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    117. Re:well.. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      2. Limit military spending to 3 times any other country. (Saving ~428 billion a year.)

      The principle is good, but the figure probably needs rethinking. Three times any other country roughly equals Britain + France + Japan (China and Russia spend surprisingly little, because they have cheaper manpower and generally use cheaper kit too, and things are further skewed by relative measures of purchasing power.) That's not enough to play the global superpower game; China would be a real threat at that point, and Taiwan at the very least would panic. The alliance with Europe would help, but are you so sure of that? After the last few years, we're not. Define your defence budget relative to credible threats, but don't tie it to an arbitrary figure under someone else's control.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    118. Re:well.. by maraist · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a progressive tax on liquid assets such that interest accrued and "asset tax" balance out to a steady state at some arbitrarily large number, perhaps $100 million, but above that amount the tax would exponentially grow such that any assets will be taxed away after say 30 years.

      Well, interest is taxed as income (less the Social Security), so it is already graduated. And property is at 1 to 5% depending on where you live and what type of property (boat, car, house, land). Though that's at the state-level (and it probably makes the most sense to leave it taxed that way).

      I don't see any advantage of taxing interest on a separate scale from income, but you could easily do that, it's already on a separate IRS form.

      That only leaves the property taxes (including boats). What I deduce you're arguing then is that properties over $100M are taxed at higher rates (since it doesn't make too much sense to combine this with your income level). But then you're back to state-to-state differences.... People would register their boats in cheaper states, etc. So next is the idea of a Federal property tax, which would uniformly share ownership across all states, and would represent real Federal income.

      Even putting a 1% federal land-property tax everywhere with some graduated scale would probably work, though it would be hard to get through congress. It would be chaotic to get people to re-register all their cars/boats, along with a federal valuation process full of horrors.

      --
      -Michael
    119. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey retard, there's this tool called google. Use it, you would find out that your statement is complete bullshit.

    120. Re:well.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The problem with sales taxes in general is that the poor do pay more, as a percentage of income.

      The issue is that the poor tend to buy goods. The weathly tend to buy services.

      [Begin example]
      Let's say I'm in a lower-middle-class household. And I need to mow my lawn. I buy a cheap $200 lawnmower, and pay $200 worth of sales tax.

      Let's say you're in an upper-class household. You hire a gardener. You pay $0 worth of sales tax directly. Your only sales tax expenses are the expenses passed on to you by your gardener.

      As a professional, your gardner needs a big, professional lawnmower which costs him $5,000. With it, he services 30 yards. (Which would make your gardener relatively unsucessful, if they're only mowing lawns). You've paid $166 worth of sales tax. ($5k/30).
      [end example]

      Now, there are various attempts to mitigate this problem with a sales tax, but all of them are massively awkward. They'd be much harder to implement, and much more prone to abuse, than an income tax system. For example, the wealthy could pay poorer people to buy stuff for them. Not bad for the buyer, but it does reduce the tax revenue thus requiring a higher tax rate on those who don't, or can't, cheat.

    121. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Why is it so hard to imagine that the IRS could be abolished without replacing it with another tax? It would be easy if government was cut down to year 2000 levels - not too much to ask. I would even go so far as to say there is no such thing as a "fair tax".

    122. Re:well.. by maraist · · Score: 1

      There are all sorts of plans for rebates and prebates to lessen the burden, but that's just getting rid of Complex System 1 in favor of Complex System 2.

      There are many problems with the "Fair Tax", but I don't think regressiveness or complexity are the two main reasons. Namely the Fair tax is tremendously cheaper to implement, and involves significantly less corruption, and almost guarantees to properly tax all income levels at spending time. This is given the fact that we already have a sales-tax system in place, so there's very low implementation costs, and high conformity levels. It gives a justification for taxing internet sales (since dollar for dollar, the middle-class would have already paid that money). It catches a lot of tax-defrauding businesses (of which I've met many in the computer industry alone). It catches milti-millionaires that have tax-havens.

      The various prebate systems I've heard of are no different than Bush's $300 / social security number that paid taxes. Sure fewer people might die in a given year, but that's no different than the number of people 'spending a year dead for tax reasons'. Depending on the final particulars it also may mean that babies get a cut, encouraging over population in poor communities (similar to welfare families).

      As for the rich getting a tax-break. They're currently at 30 something percent.. They would come down to 23% or so, true, but you can find other ways to tax them. A federal estate tax (as another poster suggested), a luxury tax on certain goods (like States already do).

      The main reasons I'm not crazy about the Fair tax is that it locks your ability to raise federal revenue to a single number. While I would much prefer a smaller government, the reality is that these bastards in congress are going to spend every possible penny, and that is going to mean continued rate hikes. Another lesser reason is that it hurts tourism - making tourism by foreigners suddenly 23% more expensive on day one. Finally it reduces a large segment of social engineering potential - college rebates for low-income families, and other such oddities like farmers subsidies (which I don't personally like, but conceivably there would be a time when it is necessary again). You can still get clever with these approaches, but then it does bring in your notion of Complex system substitution.

      --
      -Michael
    123. Re:well.. by halivar · · Score: 1

      I did. I found this. He's the least toxic candidate to neo-nazi's! Hooray! The reLOVEution! Sieg Heil!

    124. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your whole post seems to be based on the faulty labor theory of value... which would make sense, except that value is subjective. Any random person doesn't necessarily deserve Bill Gates' or Paris Hilton's money any more than they do. Economics isn't a zero sum game. It doesn't matter how rich someone is... if people are free to make their own opportunities, that is about as fair as you can get.

    125. Re:well.. by midnightblue315 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dumbass. All your arguments have ZERO merit. They have been systematically dismantled, yet individuals too intellectually lazy to find out the facts relentlessly repeat your line of bullshit. For instance, you are precisely wrong about the Federal Reserve. Central banks CREATE "bubbles" that then bust and cause recessions. If you don't believe me, check the adjusted monetary base for the last 7 years. You'll find that as the Fed as increased the monetary base, the stock market and housing bubbles expanded, as the growth of the monetary base leveled off, these bubbles began to burst. Go read lewrockwell.com or mises.org and learn something before opening the gaping maw to the black hole of your skull in the presence of another human being ever again. P.S. I'm sick of dumbasses who could take just a little fucking time and become disabused of their dumbassedness.

    126. Re:well.. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If you dig into the issue a little bit more you will realize that the remarks were made during a very short period of time, spanning maybe a year or two. According to what Paul has said, that was a time of transition in the newsletter and he wasn't at all involved in the day to day operations.


      Oh please, would you believe George Bush if he offered an excuse as stupid as that. And even assuming, arguendo, that his version is true, that doesn't bode well for his managerial skills. Are you saying it's stupid or that is isn't true?
      Are you saying that Bush has shown a level of honesty and consistency even remotely approaching that of Paul?
      Why are you so intent of believing the dirt in question?
      Do you know what host brought this info to the media? Do you know that same host showed up to a Paul press conference with two hookers and their pimp and it made news as "brothel owner supports Paul", not as "CNN host shows up to news conference with two prostitutes"?

      Do you know that on the day this dirt came out, the man who won the primary against Paul had in his last race to the same position hired one of the people convicted for the dirty tricks that were uncovered in the Watergate scandal?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    127. Re:well.. by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 1
      The Netherlands effectively has this as part of their income tax:

      Flat tax on savings and investments (box 3)
      There is a flat tax on the total value of the savings and investments of 1.2 % per year. It is nominally part of the income tax, as a 30 % tax on a fixed assumed yield of 4 % of the value of the assets. EUR 20,014 (higher for 65+ with a low income) of the value of the assets is exempted.

      The amount of money invested in approved "green" investments (up to EUR 53,421) aren't taxed in this manner, in fact, a tax rebate per year of 1.3 % of the value is applied for these investments. The rebate only counts towards box III.

      I wouldn't mind seeing something like this in US. Real wealth comes from assets not income.

    128. Re:well.. by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        If there are cases where the ownership cannot be properly determined, then who would administer the property until it can be? One case would be if we opened up new lands in which there were no residents?

        tic

    129. Re:well.. by bogjobber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You act as if your definition of fairness is objective. It most definitely is not. Let me give you this:

      The reason a hot tar roofer makes shit wages is because he doesn't do anything special. He gets paid what his work is worth. Bill Gates took the time and effort to get educated, took the risk to start a company, and put in the time to build it into what it is today. The roofer did none of that. How is it fair that he has to pay a higher portion of his income to taxes just because he was more successful?

      You see what I did there? That makes just as much sense as your argument. It's unfair that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet had a significant advantage of a wealthy, educated upbringing over a poor wage laborer. But it's also unfair to take more from someone simply because they did well with their life.

      Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it. We should do what is best for society, with deference to personal liberty. I happen to believe that this means taxing the rich more than the poor. But all this talk about fairness is ridiculous.

    130. Re:well.. by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        That's probably the most accurate statement I've seen in this thread so far (your comment, not the youtube vid, which I did not watch).

        Sooner or later, this whole house of cards is going to come tumbling down. Problem is, it's the whole country that built it, not either party, any party, or any individuals in question... but the whole fucking lot of us, every damned voting aged adult.

      tic

    131. Re:well.. by STrinity · · Score: 1

      This story wasn't broken by CNN -- it was the New Republic. And smearing the messenger doesn't refute the claims.

      Paul doesn't deny that these things were published under his name in his official news letter. He just claims that he didn't know about it because ... well, managing his own affairs isn't worth his attention.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    132. Re:well.. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Oh, indeed, will the sacred cow be butchered.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    133. Re:well.. by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        Jesus. I thought usenet was bad.

        There are all sorts of idiots on all sides who are intent on destroying what we have, all for their own purposes. Do you honestly think that just because some bunch of clowns associates themselves with one candidate or another that said candidate supports their agendas or ideologies?

        This kind of shit happened before, back in the sixties (Nixon particularly). You must be pretty damned young not to remember it.

        I'm not a Ron Paul advocate by any means, I disagree with him on a number of points. But it's interesting to see how much bullshit his opponents are disseminating.

      tic

    134. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government exists to solve problems people cannot solve on their own.

      Wrong. The government has clear definition for existence in the US constitution. "Common defense" being one of them. People need to take personal responsibility for their "pursuit of happiness." The government should stay out of your and my business. If I chose not to save for my retirement, that's my choice. No government bale outs for over extended people or corporations. You are free to make poor decisions, if you like. Don't ask me to bale you out.

    135. Re:well.. by dingDaShan · · Score: 1

      Universal Healthcare coverage up to 10000 per person per year... if everyone used their ten thousand = 2.5 trillion. WTF?

    136. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the President of the Austin, TX branch of the NAACP came out in support of Ron Paul"

      Did he join GNAA then?

    137. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul had an interview on the radio in New Hampshire in which he claimed that he was going to fix the health care system and lower our health care costs by - ready for this one - giving physicians the right to collective bargaining with the government. Oh, yeah, because unions ALWAYS lower wages for the union members. Either he's a liar, or he's the most incompetent economic thinker in the history of US politics - and we've got George W. Bush to look back on.

    138. Re:well.. by tic!lock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously he should be paid less than someone like Tiger Woods who benefits thousands of fans per tournament.

        Oh pshaw. You're valuing mindless entertainment over a necessity (rain-proof shelter). There's no comparison in any real assessment of what's important.

        That's the point - shelter, food, clean water are necessities to existence whereas TW and Spielberg are not.

        What the hell are you kids being taught nowadays?

      tic

    139. Re:well.. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      And smearing the messenger doesn't refute the claims. Says the one flinging poo.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    140. Re:well.. by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      And, with any luck, most of our current infrastructure will be destroyed. If it is, whatever ruling systems arise after anarchy will be very localized, and almost assuredly better than what we have now.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    141. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

      There are always cases where ownership or right is difficult to establish, that is why justice is not done merely by computers and that is why it is never perfect. However, for the specific case of new lands, if you settle somewhere, build a house, start cultivating, etc then no one can deprive you of your effort and you can claim that land. In most cases, it's not very hard to see who is the legitimate owner and who is the intruder, but there are always difficult cases, like oil fields for example.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    142. Re:well.. by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Very good points indeed, Good Citizen Retric. I would take exception to #1 and 8, though: #1 should be to end the illegal occupation, as that is what it technically and legally is. #8 is arbitrary, that and many other junk bond-derived machinations derive from the Financial Services Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act during the previous administration (aided by Treasury Secy. Rubin and Alan Greenspan, of course, and with the hearty approval of the neocons). Although most of the items goes beyond the ken of the presidency, it would be nice.....

      The Greenspan Doctrine:

      Take as much as possible from the middle-class and working class and give as much as possible to the rich and super-rich.

    143. Re:well.. by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      That's why I stopped watching the news in America after the big story was that ducttape and cellophane would protect a household against NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical, not the tv station) attacks.

      I would never have read the AC post you mentioned had you not dove into the muck and waded about.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    144. Re:well.. by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Non-responsive.
       
      Ron Paul's official newsletter contained racist articles penned in his name. This is a fact, acknowledged by the Paul campaign. It is not a smear to point it out. It is not beyond the pale to think that this is something that should be taken into account when evaluating his candidacy. You might not like it, but don't act like people who are talking about it are playing dirty.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    145. Re:well.. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Perhaps I'm being a bit presumptuous and I apologize if so, but I believe the entity you may be thinking of is what is commonly referred to as The United States of America - an entity whose entire existence, governmental organization, delegation of roles to, limits on, and responsibilities of its central (Federal) government are defined by a document generally referred to as the "Constitution for the United States of America" ["Constitution"]. Ah, yes, here is a copy of it - you might want to read it - it's quite an interesting document. If you're thinking of some other collection of states on a continent other than that often referred to as "North America" or generally north of the 49th parallel or south of the 30th parallel, read no further as we must be thinking of different groups of states. ["Insensitive Clod" commentators who live somewhere like Mexicali, Mexico or San Antonio, Texas - I wrote "generally" -- get over it]

      The Constitution specifies that some of the things you suggested (such as certain foreign affairs and and defense of the United States of America) are the responsibility of the Federal government. So, we'd have to amend the Constitution to permit those to be undertaken by the individual states. Personally, I'd be against such a proposal, but knock yourself out promoting it if you like.

      Everything else you mentioned (social services, education, and food safety) is not relegated by the Constitution to the Federal government and is therefore outside the scope of the Federal government. Mostly, it's up to the states and municipalities to decide if and how they want to control/provide these things. They may (and probably would) decide to band together on these things for the sake of efficiency - but Minnesota may well choose to opt out of a requirement that toilets that only use 1.6 gallons of water per flush but require higher standards for insulation in the floors of new houses while Los Angeles may opt for the opposite. In any event, one can simply amend the Constitution to elevate control of these things (and possibly much more) to the Federal government. Personally, as I really don't want Bush or Huckabee deciding what kids are taught with my tax dollar, I'd probably be against such an amendment, but knock yourself out promoting it if you like.

      Ignoring the Tenth Amendment (for those folks who were schooled outside the U.S. or who were hanging out in the parking lot smoking during your civics class in school: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.") really doesn't make it go away - honest!

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    146. Re:well.. by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      I would open an investigation of where George H.W. Bush was the day of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy....

    147. Re:well.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's "bail out", like removing water from a boat, not "bale out", like removing hay from a barn.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    148. Re:well.. by halivar · · Score: 1

      Oh, no. You don't get it. "Smearing" is when you defy the predefined narrative of the Ron Paul campaign. "Truthing" is when you make up bat-shit insane conspiracy theories, like TNR faking the documents as some RP supporters suggest.

    149. Re:well.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Illegal immigration is illegal simply because the people attempting to immigrate have not be vetted against standards set by the government to attempt to ensure they will be productive beneficial members of society, which of course is reasonable and understandable (examples, in good health, no criminal record, mentally stable, be employable and willing to become a loyal citizen). Secondly the society they are attempting to emmigrate to must be capable of sustaining the additional population as well as the additional burden of accommodating, supporting and teaching the new immigrants, so they must set and maintain acceptable immigration limits.

      Now as for new laws, I would implement. First and foremost would be compulsory voting, it is the absolute minimum effort that any citizen should be into maintaining and supporting a democracy that they are a part of and failure to do so should be penalised and secondly that all voting and vote counting systems should be open and manual, after all it is meant to be a government of the people by the people and for the people so why are machines doing the voting or the vote counting. Hence I would attempt to ensure 'DEMOCRACY' takes what ever course the people define.

      Of course the computer geek in me also sees the need for Internet 3, an Internet that connects primary and secondary schools together and access is restricted, monitored and censored, so parents can let children wander a secure controlled children's network and not be subjected to what is basically an adults only world wide web.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    150. Re:well.. by websaber · · Score: 1
      Every time I see these questions raised it shocks me how little is understood of the alternative side of theses issues.

      - The IRS raises much of the money the Federal government uses to fund the military, subsidize farmers, scientific research, college education (in the form of grants to Universities and subsidized student loans), etc. So how do you go about solving all of the problems such a drastic measure would cause?

      Wrong the IRS only contributes a portion of the federal governments budget. The principle is not that there should be no government it is that taxes should be raised as local as possible. The further the money gets from the people the more it gets wasted. Why can't the federal government pay for only the military and science which benefits everyone directly while local government pays for education. The IRS is estimated to contribute 40% of the federal budget a major cut in spending would be a wash, while whatever spending needs to be replaced can be done at the local level where there is COMPETITION. Also remember that more and more of our funds are going to debt service anyway.

      Abolish the Federal Reserve. What the heck would this accomplish? While they aren't great, they definitely serve the purpose for which it was designed--dampen market-driven cycles and try to minimize inflation. Do you wish for a return of runs on the market and severe depressions/recessions? I didn't realize this until I started reading up on congressman Paul, The FED is creating those bubbles and then trying to fix them!!!! The problem is that the more they try to fix it the worse it gets. It's like hard core drugs, more doesn't cure the addiction it just makes it feel that way for a while. Please read http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/255/the-maestro-changes-his-tune/ Even if you totally disagree at least understand the argument

      Abolish the Department of Education Again the further the money gets from the tax payer the more of it disappears on the journey. Why can't all states pay for this.?

      Abolish the FCC - agreed.

      the policies can be debated for ever but the more you are able to do at the local level the better.

      --
      "A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
    151. Re:well.. by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Although you claim to be a libertarian, you think like a legal positivist as if ownership was granted by a government... but how does that government get the right to grant ownership? You're caught in a meaningless loop.

      If there is a conflict between two people on the claim to a property, who decides who's claim is valid? A court of law, correct? Who funds the court of law? Who decides what people are the court judges? Who establishes the rules that the court abide by?

      And if you answer, "The government," then I ask you how is it that the government obtains these right to decide these decisions? Moreover, you say that "Property is initially acquired by homesteading, by mixing your labor with the natural resources," but what august body decides that that is how property is defined?

      In short, we need some axioms in our social system. You hold one axiom, that "Property is initially acquired by homesteading, by mixing your labor with the natural resources." I hold another: that things are messier and that there really isn't a clean and fair way to decide these rules, which is why we, as a populace, get together and form a body that compromises and makes a set of rules.

      I wish your way was "The Way," because then I'd have parts of South Carolina coming my way as my great-grandfather was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian. But I understand that reality is more complex and a lot of libertarian ideals do not fit nicely into reality.

      And when I say I am a libertarian, I do mean it. I wish your way would be a way that could work in the real world. I wish that governmental decisions were made entirely at the local level, that we had a virtually non-existent military force, that there was no income tax, that there were no pervasive laws prohibiting drug use, that people were left alone and allowed to work out their business and personal lives on their own without governmental interference. But I know that the extreme views of libertarianism won't work. I think a more realistic ideal would be to get our government more libertarian-leaning, but to expect that it is possible to have a truly functioning, libertarian society of any appreciable population size spread over any appreciable area is wishful thinking.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    152. Re:well.. by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1

      At first I thought you were a dumbass who needs a foot in the ass the "That 70s Show" style. But then again, there are those who rated your post as Interesting. World is a surprising and interesting place after all.

    153. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good start but Replace 8 with: 8. End mass media consolidation. 9. Should factor in the term of the loan. Longer loan => smaller APR. Shorter load => greater APR. Replace 10 with: 10. Patent and copyright reform!

    154. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heath care is pricey, but most people don't spend 10k / year. The trend is for most people to skip basic heathcare and a few big spenders realy throw the average. I say dump medicare so everyone can get basic heath care vs. taking care of poor old people.

      "In 2005 (the latest year data are available), total national health expenditures rose 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation (1). Total spending was $2 TRILLION in 2005, or $6,700 per person"

      PS: The us GDP is ~13 Trillion / year we spend around 15% of that on heathcare.

    155. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Issue an executive order that henceforth fossil fuel use will be reserved for the military only
      2) Annex Canada
      3) Cancel all imports of fossil fuels
      4) Close the borders and increase defense of southern land border and all three coastlines
      5) Implement draconian limits on the use of fresh water
      6) Increase funding to the NOAA and FEMA
      7) Tie a knot and hold on

    156. Re:well.. by Retric · · Score: 1

      OK Define your defence budget relative to credible threats Who do you think is going to attack us?

      "Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is not adjusted for purchasing power parity. The 2005 U.S. military budget was larger than that of the next 14 biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

      PS: We are at "War" right now and we only increased our budget by 25% WTF is wrong with this picture.

    157. Re:well.. by francisstp · · Score: 1

      Abolish the IRS

      The IRS raises much of the money the Federal government uses to fund the military, subsidize farmers, scientific research, college education (in the form of grants to Universities and subsidized student loans), etc. So how do you go about solving all of the problems such a drastic measure would cause? Force the thousands of college graduates to double or triple the amount they have to spend on their monthly studen loan bill? Force thousands of others to not even go to college because they would not be able to secure loans without the federal Stafford program? Force millions of people to not have access to medical treatment or medication any longer? Leave thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment overseas because there would no longer be enough money to bring them home?

      Yes, please. You have my vote!
    158. Re:well.. by Veinor · · Score: 1
      Yes, I'm sure that Paul had nothing to do with those comments. Oh wait:

      Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. [...] Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.
    159. Re:well.. by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        And we might even have a technological civilization afterwards...

      tic

    160. Re:well.. by Veinor · · Score: 1

      How dare that fucking department of education tell me that I don't have the right to teach my kids whatever the hell I want and then say that they went through high school!

    161. Re:well.. by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        The leader of the current administration *is* a monkey (or, at least a descendant of one, despite what some people may claim.)

      tic

    162. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just deal with your first two suggestions. Congress is supposed to be in charge of declaring *war*. Why not pass an amendment to the constitution that says "to limit the generality of the foregoing, *any* deployment of armed U.S. soldiers outside the boundaries of the U.S.A. is required to be approved by a two thirds vote of Congress". If Dubya or any other stooge the neocons want to put in his chair wants, he can be in charge of all the U.S. troops *most of which, hopefully* will be inside the fucking United States.

      That should help.

    163. Re:well.. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Actually Asia - specifically Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan is one of the reasons why I don't like the Ron Paul agenda of pulling troops home and downsizing US foreign policy.

      The sad truth is that the US presence in Asia has probably infantilized the politicians (especially compared to Western Europe) and if they leave all these idiots will be swept along with a national mood they have done everything to encourage towards a major war. And the cost to the US of intervening in that will be far higher than keeping troops in Asia even indefinitely. And America being America they are sure to intervene if a major war breaks out.

      Now if you're an Ron Paul supporter you could argue that the US should pull out and not intervene. But that seems too like the US's stance in the 1930's to me. The world quickly went to hell and the US was forced to intervene in the end. If something like that happened the next administration after the Ron Paul one would just need to rush troops to whatever commercially important ally was being attacked. And then fight and beat whovever was attacking them.

      There's a system in place that evolved after that experience. In many ways it seems expensive, but look at the cost of WWII. WWIII would be much more dangerous. Any aspiring regional superpower thwarted by the US is likely to have enough nukes to level hundreds of US cities. And don't lump Iraq into "the system" - that was just adventurism. I'm talking purely about a system of allliances, bases and aircraft carriers scattered around the world to deter anyone else using force to change borders. Ron Paul seems to be against that too.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    164. Re:well.. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Comments:

      1) Given the extreme volatility of the Middle East--especially if Iran is edging closer to building "gunbarrel" style U235-based nuclear weapons, in spite of a number of claims to the contrary--that might not be a good idea.
      2) Here's the problem: much of the world depends on the American presence for its defense. This is especially critical in Asia, where China well on its way to becoming a major military power.
      3) You can forget about fiber to every home except in urban areas--we're not South Korea or Japan, where the high population density makes the idea economically practical.
      4) Removing the income limit on SS/Medicare taxes would be a BAD idea, because that would encourage high-income Americans to move their income offshore--legal or not!
      5) I'd offer major tax incentives to build and develop next-generation solar power arrays based on nanotechnology. However, wind farms might not be such a good idea given the big problems with NIMBYism we've run into lately, unless you want your wind farms out in the far reaches of the Great Plains (and all the attendent issues of long-range power transmission).
      6) I'd fund primarily trolley systems and light rail, systems that are relatively easy to implement. Commuter passenger rail systems would only be limited to areas where railroad right-of-way already exists. Also, I'd fund larger buses for express bus service on busy corridors.
      7) I'd create a commission to look into the issues of various universal health care plans, and make sure we have one that addresses the problem of health care rationing.
      8) I'd be real careful about any increased regulation of any financial market--make sure you don't create something that causes more problems than it solves (e.g., too much regulation of home lending could essentially shut out too many first-time home buyers for the wrong reasons).
      9) If you put a cap on APR, you will also have to tighten requirements for getting a credit card in the first place.
      10) Large science projects should be collaborative projects handled by specially-created agencies. In fact, it's likely that the first human voyage to Mars could end up with collaboration of every major space agency in the world, mostly due to the extreme cost involved (we're talking something that could cost US$50 billion or more in 2008 dollars).

    165. Re:well.. by xshader · · Score: 1

      The tar roofer gets paid 9 dollars an hour because we have an excess of illegal immigrants willing to keep the minimum wage down. If we didn't have so many people willing to do the "dirty" jobs for so cheap, the minimum wage wouldn't be so low and the people living in trailers and projects might actually be able to make a living by not selling drugs and/or prostitution.

    166. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows republicans are Racists, Ron Paul is just the only one denying it.

      I'm not saying he's a racist... but he is a republican...

      The above was a joke, except that republicans are fucking racists.

    167. Re:well.. by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      2. Abolish the Federal Reserve... response

      It's not all bad. We've been waiting for the housing market to downturn so we can get a decent deal on a house. If you're in looking to get your first home, now is the time. With all the "Hey! Real estate is BOOMING" people out prospecting for houses to resell instead of live in.

      5. Abolish social security... response

      I totally agree. I've already paid in thousands upon thousands into social security, the odds of me seeing it again.... somewhere below zero (meaning I'll just be losing more.) I'd much rather see universal healthcare, or privatized healthcare/funds, and oh yeah - retirement. Either way, I can make sure my wife/kids are taken care of, and not taken advantage of.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    168. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And btw, good luck finding sources for something that happened decades ago.

    169. Re:well.. by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1

      Overall, I do think immigration, especially illegal immigration benefit the economy but even if it didn't, or actually harmed it - like it does in other country with high welfare - that wouldn't justify stopping immigration. The state alone is responsible for the harm done through taxation. The fact that immigration can make this harm more intense does not mean the immigrants are morally responsible for the harm and thus it is illegitimate to oppose them on this ground.
      Woah... wait a moment. So you're saying we should be lax with illegal immigrants, while our neighbor to the south, Mexico, will put you in jail for a couple of years just for your first offense of being illegally in their country? Yes. They put you in jail for two years, then deport you. If you do it again, you go to jail for 10 or more years. Oh, and you should look into the kind of paperwork necessary to get any kind of job there, too. We have it really easy here.

      As the child of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who bothered to obey the laws, learn English, and not expect a handout, I find it wholly offensive that anyone should propose that we do not deal with stopping people from sneaking across the borders and illegally taking up residence here. First things first, however... it has to stop with sealing the borders... stop the influx before dealing with who's here.

      --
      OCO is Loco
    170. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've already paid in thousands upon thousands into social security, the odds of me seeing it again.... somewhere below zero This is a complete farse, social security will be there when you retire. It's projected to continue just fine until at least 2040, and even then we'll be able to make changes as necessary to keep it afloat.

      We went through these same issues in the 70's. And the 80's. (Probably the 90's too).

      There would be a lot of very pissed off people if social security went away. And a whole class of indigent old people. There becomes a point when you can no longer work and too dumb to save for retirement. Is it optimal? No. Is there a solution? Yes: Social Security.

    171. Re:well.. by samantha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everything the Founding Fathers said and did is extreme as hell relative to what we have now. Hell, it was extreme back then too. Nothing is more extreme than saying the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect and secure your freedoms and that your freedom includes the right and responsibility to bring down any government that fails in this. It is really extreme to say that you, and I, and each person are the only sovereigns and government is our servant that serves at our pleasure.

      Lets hear it for extremism.

    172. Re:well.. by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 1
      Do you honestly think that just because some bunch of clowns associates themselves with one candidate or another that said candidate supports their agendas or ideologies?

      Are you dense? I wrote:

      Regardless of his own views on race, Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of racist "White Nationalist" groups ...because Ron Paul's anti-Federalist agenda would ...gut society's ability to clamp down on [them]. Your reading comprehension skills need work.
    173. Re:well.. by uncqual · · Score: 1

      It's not all bad. We've been waiting for the housing market to downturn so we can get a decent deal on a house.
      Amen... But don't forget it works even for established homeowners! We sold near the top (exactly how near was luck - we did leave about 3 to 5% on the table as it turned out, hopefully next time we time it slightly better) and are happily renting a fine rent controlled place in a high cost urban area for less than $2K month. The bubble is collapsing and we will swoop in somewhere after the first signs of stable rebound (there will probably be some apparent false rebounds followed by further declines - no need to be greedy, better to win than to lose by trying to win every penny). Life is good! Good Luck but don't jump in too early - it's going to be a long ride (at least two years of devastating disaster in all but the very top housing markets).
      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    174. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul doesn't oppose free trade. He opposes trade managed by treaties and governments. Therefore, he opposes trade treaties. Ron Paul actually believes in unilateral free trade. Throughout his career he has done his best to promote unilateral free trade.

      As for the North American Union, you should realize that globalism is a real and valid sentiment which you do violence to every time you deny the possibility of an NAU. A bit of research finds that there are people both important and not who feel that many if not all national boundaries are arbitrary relics. Indeed, such sentiments have been expressed in the comments on this post already.

      I find the claim sympathetic, but do not feel the current governments of America, Canada, and Mexico are trustworthy enough for expansion of territory to be justifiable. Nor are they decentralized enough that such an effort would be likely to create a functioning nation. Instead pre-existing tendencies towards centralization of power would create terrible rifts and result in the experiment breaking down.

    175. Re:well.. by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      I don't see how any government has any right or business telling who can cross and not cross an imaginary line.

      The right comes from a mandate from the masses, who declare their support (or lack thereof) for such an action by hiring representatives who feel as they do. Well, theoretically anyway.

      I may have missed this, not bing a US citizen, but which candidate is standing on an abolish-all-national-boundaries ticket?
    176. Re:well.. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Oh, right, and the Democrats, collectively, are demonstrating such clear moral superiority...

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    177. Re:well.. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Congress is perfectly capable of doing 1 and 2 in their own way. After 6 months, Congress can say "bring 'em home, or ask for declaration of war" (note that they have not done so). Congress has plenty of influence over the budget.

      1. Quickly WIN OIF.
      2. Limit military spending to 3 times any other two countries. People like to forget how much territory and people are under our aegis. We are in a very real way the military of the EU. They can have awesome social programs because they know we've got their backs.
      3. Fiber to the home. Every home.
      4. Remove the income limit on SS / Medicare taxes. (It's the #1 reason why the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the super rich and the reason SS is having trouble in the first place.)
      5. Invest in proven solar / wind systems that are close to the break even point. (EX: Solar hot water systems and wind farms.)
      6. Fund mass transit.
      7. Limited universal healthcare (90% coverage up to 10k per person per year.)
      8. Increased regulation of the lending market.
      9. Gradually abolish interest, or keep it to something minuscule.
      10. Fund ITER and other large science projects.
      11. MARS, BITCHES!
      12. Gradually phase out fines for offenses and replace them with jail time.
      13. Put white and blue collar crooks in the same cells
      14. 5 year presidential term limit, no re-election.
      15. Elected officials who require security clearances must get them the same way everyone else does
      16. And must make their tax returns public record so we can see if they are receiving kick backs

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    178. Re:well.. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      That's a big IF, hoss. Brown, poor and female people have a MUCH harder time making opportunities.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    179. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to point out that the adjective "fair" was used to modify the word "tax" not "labor". Your argument is a straw dog.

      If you would like to argue that the fair tax is not in fact fair please go on.

    180. Re:well.. by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Oh well, if Mexico does it, then it must be right. How dare we not follow their example. And in Saudi Arabia they kill women that drive a car, while we for some strange reason don't.

      What are you, an idiot or something?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    181. Re:well.. by sheph · · Score: 1

      Illegal immigration is illegal because the federal government decided it was.

      I'm no supporter of Ron Paul, but you seem to be ill informed regarding immigration. You're right on one count; just because the government says something is illegal doesn't mean that we shouldn't question it, but please let's use some common sense. I'm sorry, but illegal immigration is illegal because our infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed if it wasn't. The federal government didn't just arbitrarily decide it would be a good idea to be exclusionary. Our health care system alone is falling apart because they are obligated by law to care for those without the means to pay. I'm paying over $300 / month for health care insurance, and I have an $8000 annual deductible. That's just one aspect.

      Here's another: if someone is going to disregard our immigration laws what other laws do they choose to ignore? Twice when I lived in California I was hit by an illegal with no insurance, no drivers license, no comprende. Both times the police impounded their vehicle, and took the moron to jail, but that doesn't help me. Now my insurance has to cover the cost, I have to pay my deductible, and everyone's rates go up. Meanwhile, they get out of jail the next morning, go drop their welfare check on a new clunker and a six pack and do it again. No, my friend there is very good reason why it's illegal, and it should be.

      Ask anyone involved in law enforcement who has the least regard for the law in the border states. My brother was telling me the other day that they just caught a serial rapest in AZ that was going after children. He was an illegal. Big surprise there. If they want to come here they need to frickin' get in line like everyone else and respect the law of the land. I have no problem if someone wants to come here legally, pay their dues like everybody else, and make a better life for themselves and their families. That's what this country is all about. If someone wants to come here and sit on welfare, break the law, and disregard the personal rights of their fellow Americans then I think they need to be booted straight away. If I was president I would make it so.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    182. Re:well.. by sheph · · Score: 1

      Ummm..... I hate to break it to you, but life's not fair. Even in a sociallist environment there still exists a structure that you are very unlikely to rise to the top of unless you are born into it.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    183. Re:well.. by stiller · · Score: 1
      You are using a very mixed bag of confusing arguments, without properly supporting your claim that this form of tax is "fair". A few criticisms:

      Let's talk for a moment about "fairness". A person doing hot tar roofing earns $9 an hour. Tiger Woods earns $171 a minute for playing golf. Stephen Spielberg earns $632 a minute. Paris Hilton is set for life for doing absolutely nothing of value. Is that a fair rewarding of labor?

      1) The person doing hot tar roofing could have chosen to do something else if the market aks for a different skill set. This is free market and a nice incentive for free education. By the way, where I come from (the Netherlands) builders/plumbers/roof-workers etc., quite often have a higer income than engineers, precisely because of they are sparse.
      2) Both Tiger Woods and Steven Spielberg have worked extremely hard for little or no pay at all before they reached the threshold needed to become international stars. Also, they have taken a great risk as they could well both have become under achievers in the field of sports and arts, which aren't exactly reliable income sources.
      3) Paris Hilton has inherited her fortune, which is completely irrelevant to your argument, even though her family has performed extremely successful for generations to achieve this.

      So to answer your rhetorical question: yes this is a fair rewarding.

      We live in a (mostly) free market economy, and that's generally a good thing. It means that we pay for goods what they're worth. It means we strive to reduce subsidy and get mad when we see it in some form or another. It tends to lead to optimal use of resources. All of this is great, except that it treats people just like another good.

      4) No, it treats the value which they can add to a product or service as just another good. The person is not equal to the service he or she provides. Treating people as goods would be slave-trade.

      The hot tar worker is like sand, available on the cheap, while Tiger Woods and Spielberg are like gold. They're rare, so the market pays more for them, exponentially more, obscenely more.

      5) This is starting to sound communist. The market (or us, the people) paying exponentially more for the services of some other people is obscene? How, exactly? Is it offensive or disgusting to others? Does people earning 1000 times more than we insult us? I don't think so, it doesn't bother me at all that there are internet billionaires.

      Wages in a free market economy are naturally distributed along an "L" curve. This isn't "fair" in terms of the amount of labor people put in (or even how "smart" they are, or how much risk they were willing to take), but the free market doesn't care about "fairness". It doesn't care about anything. To it, people are just goods.

      6) Why is this distribution not "fair", exactly? What would be fair? An even distribution of wages? According to the hours put in? That wouldn't work as it takes away incentive for excellence, as has been shown by many communist societies.
      7) Are you willing to factor in how "smart" (I'm using your brackets there) people are and what risk they're willing to take? Good, because I am saying that is exactly what the free market does. Or do you believe that there is some other secret factor at work here? Which one would that be? I am willing to say that luck has something to do with it, as the market needs some time to settle on new incentives.

      Now, while wages may be distributed exponentially, human needs are not.

      8) So, you are saying that human needs are distributed evenly? That's not true. A person on lifelong medical care needs a lot more than a healthy person. I would even call their needs exponentially higher than mine.

      A poor person, buying necessities, has no money left over for luxury. A wealthy person simply cannot buy enough necessities to even dent their luxury budget. And if they did buy necessities for other people, that

    184. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was a news letter for fucks sake, im forgetful from time to time, like ill forget i put a roast in the oven, but its not like ill forget that i shouldnt put a baby in the oven! running a country and running a new letter are not the same. jesus tap dancing christ, your argument is that ron paul is a bad man because something he was in charge of, sorta he was more or less on hiatus, printed something that was raciest, which last i checked is not illegal not really nice but not against the law. because hes not a totalitarian hes a bad man?????

      people who call ron paul raciest are generally idiots, but this is just silly

    185. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Good post - I agree with you completely. I wanted to give someone else a chance to repsond to the parents claims, and you did an excellent job. I hope the parent is able to make a more informed decision based on your response. One more thing about the IRS is that federal income taxes could easily be eliminated if we went back to year 2000 spending levels. That's how much the IRS brings in, and I don't think that level would be difficult to go back to.

      If all the FCC did was regulate the spectrum, then we would have a lot less to complain about. But the problem with the FCC is that they have completely gone off the deep end of regulation and censorship.

      And even with the spectrum, there could be private ownership and free market solutions.

    186. Re:well.. by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Nothing personal, you are absolutely one person I would never vote in to any position of power. Your ideas are not even remotely democratic if you have to start out by forcing people to vote. What ever happened to freedom of choice and expression? Of course you don't have to listen to my expression, but neither do I yours.

      I'm sure my opinion will be shot to pieces by people saying that I'm part of some greater society, blah blah, police force, fire, ambulance, military, blah blah, public utilities and so on. Anyone doing so would actually be right. Just because I wouldn't follow your idea of democracy doesn't mean I wouldn't or couldn't participate in society.

      I'm an expat, my views are not necessarily logical, but they are ok for me. I can't vote in the country where I live, nor do I have to vote while away from the country I left. Double win really.

    187. Re:well.. by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      You are talking about the FEDERAL Department of Education, right? The most "tits on a boar" useless department ever?

      But besides that, no, I don't have a problem with you teaching your kid that the elements are Earth, Air, Fire, and Water; or that the Universe is 6000 years old, or that he farts daisies. When your kid meets my kid in the job market, you get to reap what you sow. And if your kid turns to violence because he can't get a job, he gets jailed for the violence, not put on welfare.

      Is my world going to come to pass? Probably not. Is it scary? Yeah, for many. But your world, where the Feds "care" for us at the expense of free opinion and dissent, is pretty scary, too. And I can see that one coming dead ahead.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    188. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1

      If it's possible to ease into less regulation and more freedom with a transition plan, I'm all for it.

    189. Re:well.. by jam244 · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about becoming a citizen ?
      Who said anything about paying taxes?
    190. Re:well.. by notaspunkymonkey · · Score: 1

      Your totally right - the World was a far worse place before America got involved with major wars. Doh.. Have you ever actually "Won" a war? - or do you kind of show up - kill a lot of people and then lose interest - the whole while raping the local economy to the benefit America? You would dive in an "fight and beat whoever was attacking them" yeah - sure.. perhaps if it was Switzerland against Norway... so many people are fed up with American bullshit - why do you think Team America World Police ever got made.. the rest of the world would not care if America was totally destroyed by some kind of Natual Disaster.

    191. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12. Gradually phase out fines for offenses and replace them with jail time.

      Yes, because we have so much vacant jail space around here. It's not like jail sentences are being reduced to little more than detention after school due to overcrowding or anything. How do you propose we solve this problem?

      13. Put white and blue collar crooks in the same cells

      I suppose that's one way to free up space, but I prefer your other idea:

      11. MARS, BITCHES!

      So let's just fix that:

      12. Gradually phase out fines for offenses and replace them with jail time.
      13. Put white and blue collar crooks in the same cells ON MARS, BITCHES!

    192. Re:well.. by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1
      Apparently you are... because all I'm talking about is stopping the influx of and then eventually returning the illegal aliens home versus what happens in other countries and how good they have it here... especially the ones from which many (not all) of the illegals come.

      Grow up.

      --
      OCO is Loco
    193. Re:well.. by tom_evil · · Score: 1

      If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention? They are busy attacking Obama...

      --
      i am the opposite of tom_good, i am the XOR of ]=9fÆ"ÝÕ and ÖÆ\KF, i am 746F6D5F6576696C00.
    194. Re:well.. by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul supports opposing immigration with force which is morally unacceptable.
      How so? Illegal immigrants are trespassers onto our property and therefor we may legitimately use force to oppose them, just as we can legitimately use force against burglars.

      Illegal 'immigration' is trespassing, pure and simple.

    195. Re:well.. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Economics isn't a zero sum game. It doesn't matter how rich someone is...
      Economics isn't an infinite sum game either, and it is certainly possible for one person to take more of the available wealth than he actually created. Given that the incomes of the richest 1% have basically tripled over the last 30 years, while people outside the top 20% have seen very little increase at all (mostly due to two-income households and more hours worked per person), I believe this is exactly what is happening.

      Also, it certainly does matter how rich other people are. Do you think it matters to a member of America's working poor that they have access to more food, better shelter, and more effective medical care than anyone in the Bronze Age? If you think they take a moment's comfort in the thought, you don't understand human psychology. People don't compare themselves to people distant and invisible to themselves. What they do see is how much better other people live, which causes all sorts of dissatisfaction and stress. Now, if the person is convinced of his ability to close the gap, it can lead him to work hard. But if opportunities are frustratingly few, and the gap is huge, it can lead to hopelessness and resentment.

      For any given amount of objective wealth, the person who has it will be much happier if the bulk of the people around him are somewhat poorer than him, and much less happy if he's sitting at the bottom, looking up at the lifestyles of the richer and famouser.

      There is a strong correlation between wealth equality and life span. Beyond a certain, surprisingly low threshold, there is a very weak correlation between per-capita GNP and lifespan. Even in a society where most everyone is paid exactly the same (Cuba), many people still choose to undergo the taxing training required to become a doctor, simply because of the social prestige attached to the position. Cubans have nearly as long of lifespan as Americans (despite spending about a tenth what we do on health care), and cross-cultural studies seem to indicate that Cubans are pretty damned happy (not quite as happy as Americans, but it's a worryingly narrow gap given that our competition lives in a third-world dictatorship).

      So absolute wealth is neither as motivating or as fulfilling as American common sense notions would indicate. If they passed a law tomorrow saying that nobody could make, say, twelve times minimum wage, I don't think we'd see an economic collapse as all the "productive people" withheld their labor from the economy. I don't think Tiger Woods would stop playing golf, or that all those talented CEOs would stop managing their companies. In fact, I think such a law would lead to more managerial talent available for CEO positions, since there would be less incentive to rig hirings in favor of cronies. Studies have shown that high CEO compensation has negligible effect on the performance of the companies they manage. Maybe capping their pay would disabuse them of the notion that their keen, infallible insight must warrant such outlandish salaries.
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    196. Re:well.. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Of course it has, just like I do, just as everyone does. No more no less. Of course that removes any "right" to tax.

      If you believe you have the right to compel others to do what you tell them to, you're way off base, and perhaps this country isn't for you.

      I'll trust the Webster. Besides even Wikipedia says "often". This is - often - the case because the governments will generally prevent you from staying if you don't become a citizen.

      Yes, often. Meaning its fairly common practice. Even Jefferson seems to think that we need some rules about immigration. He also acknowledges that those that do immigrate adapt to our way of life and government.

      Though shit... Why is it when I discuss the morality of the state, people always fall back to : it's reality live with it. Sure it is, but how does that invalidate my normative point? Besides, murder and rape may be legitimate to many people, that doesn't make them so.

      Because no reasonable person would say that people should be allowed to travel without any oversight whatsoever to other countries and decide to stay.

    197. Re:well.. by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Instead of, you know, using that veto in an honest and ethical manner, as part of your sworn duty to serve the interests of all Americans?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    198. Re:well.. by joggle · · Score: 1

      Wrong the IRS only contributes a portion of the federal governments budget.

      No, I am not wrong. I did not say that the IRS provides all of the federal income, just most of it. In fact, it provides nearly all of the federal budget and has done so continously since 1894 (although at that time I don't know if it funded the majority of the federal budget or not). For a summary of the federal income for 2007, see this page. For more references, see the links at the bottom of this article. If you really want to see the details, check out the offical 2008 budget which is online. I believe you meant to say that personal income taxes only provide 40% of the federal income, not the IRS. The IRS collects income from corporate sources as well, which is another 13%. I believe social insurance tax funels through the IRS as well which is another 32% of the federal income. The only money the federal government receives from other sources (such as tarifs and US Treasury securities to pay for the federal deficit) only adds up to 12% of the income.

      I don't feel like nor have the time to debate the effectiviness of the FED here. If you want to see my side of the argument, read Alan Greenspan's book 'The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World'.

      People always believe things are more efficient at the local level which, while usually true, is not always the case. For example, a ton of money was given by the federal government to Louisiana after Katrina. This money had almost no strings attached so the state and city of New Orleans could do with it as they wished. What happened? Due to lax oversight and local corruption the money went to various projects that had nothing to do with getting people back home or rebuilding the community.

      One thing most people forget about the federal budget is that most of the 'pork' is in the form of earmarks distributed at the local level. Larger, federal programs have much stronger auditing and oversight that prevent spending irregularities. And Ron Paul was one of the biggest beneficiaries of earmarks, receiving millions of dollars over the years for his district (see his interview on Meet the Press for details).

      One major problem with cutbacks to the federal budget is that spending oversight (by auditors) is usually cut in higher proportions than the federal budget. I have a friend that has worked as a contract auditor for the feds for 7 years or so. In those 7 years their workload has quadrupled due to downsizing. How can they possibly achieve the same level of oversight with such little manpower?

    199. Re:well.. by Veinor · · Score: 1

      And if your kid turns to violence because he can't get a job, he gets jailed for the violence, not put on welfare.
      I don't think that in general knowledge of the creation of the world or other such topics is necessarily useful for the stereotypical burger-flipping job, so your argument doesn't work. But I do believe that a parent shouldn't be able to teach their kids things that they have no evidence for and then say "well he went through high school"; I support a standardized test that the kid should have to take in order to be able to say he has a GED or something. As for who should administer the test, I don't know. Perhaps we could have some sort of government department that deals in education-related material... hmm...
    200. Re:well.. by magarity · · Score: 1

      5) This is starting to sound communist.
       
      It took you that long to realise his objection was communist in origin? One of the 10 steps to achieve communism in Marxist theory is a heavily progressive tax on income. In my original post I naively assumed everyone knew that in addition to the special interest deduction crowd the largest opponents of the Fair Tax are all the Marxists who insist it is not progressive. Even though it works out in its own way to be progressive because rich people buy brand new large ticket items such as cars and houses which are taxed under that system while second hand cars, houses, etc, are not.

    201. Re:well.. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was explaining about the United States. In response to your second paragraph, no I do no think states should take over those functions. My point was that we already have a national government to corrdinate activites of the several states. In fact, locking all the states together prevents the problem of richer states opting out (see the great-grandparent).

      And yes, I am familiar with enumerated powers. However, there are two main issues. First, I would contend that all of the things I mentioned fall under the scopes of the commerce cause. In addition, I would contend that both social services and education are rights under the 9th amendment, which the 14th gives the federal government authority over the states to enforce.

      Secondly, please remember that the Constitution, while brilliant, is not Holy Writ. Things such as slavery were allowed in order to allow disparate states to come together to form one nation. The 10th amendment is for a similar purpose. While I do agree a careful balance has to be struck between state's rights and federal rights, but I think that an expansive reading of the commerce clause is vital because of the intertwined nature of the economy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    202. Re:well.. by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Are you dense? There ALREADY ARE 50 state Departments of Education setting standards. The Federal Department has not added one whit of value to the education process in America. For one thing, they don't even set the standard you say you want! Under NCLB, the *state* sets the standards, and they get money as long as they live up to their own goals.

      Are you not even aware that you are subject to 2 separate governments, State and Federal? Maybe the standards for HS graduation were too low in your *state* when you went to school; perhaps that's why you think the Feds will come to everyone's rescue. Good luck with that.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    203. Re:well.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, because we have so much vacant jail space around here. It's not like jail sentences are being reduced to little more than detention after school due to overcrowding or anything. How do you propose we solve this problem?

      Oh, that's easy. Legalize marijuana, and reduce the criminalization of other drugs, and also make this retroactive to all current inmates. Suddenly, many/most of the people in jail will be released.

    204. Re:well.. by websaber · · Score: 1

      I hate the way you can only get a good political debate these days by tons of typing. Thanks for the info It was useful but still... According to your sources the government collects 1.4 trillion dollars a year in non-personal income taxes. I still maintain that the government can provide science, defense and social security on 1.4 trillion dollars. If not forget Ron Paul vote for me, Ill do it and still have 100 billion to bribe the electorate. don't tell me that the government can't do it today because by your own statistics most of the money is going to debt and empire maintenance . Yes we can't get rid of that tomorrow but the only way to start is vote RON PAUL!!!! And no we don't need the IRS to collect the rest. Businesses can pay it to the state and the state can pass it up.

      We are forgetting something else, eliminating Individual Income Taxes isn't trickledown economics, it's also not trickle up economics it TRICKLE EVERYWHERE ECONOMICS. Can you imagine what kind of economic activity would be generated if everyone in America got a 33% raise. We would probably be right back to current tax revenues without the crazy spending.

      With regard to the fed that is a long read but please make sure to read Ron's writings on the issue. I was apathetic until I did. I now believe the fed is causing the cycle but I will try to read greenspan to hear the other side again.

      With regard to New Orleans, you have got to be kidding me. Local government's spend their money well, other people's money is a black hole. The example you are giving is money that traveled all the way up to the fed and all the way back, of course there ws nothing left. local government should raise their own money. In case of dire emergency they may have to turn to the fed but there are so many better ways. How about if the fed declares a matching donation program, every dollar people donate to the red cross get's matched by two fed dollars. there are so many better options that a blank check or a major pork program. Earmarks are just dollars already collected. Just don't collect them. Let the state collect them and use them as needed so that there is competition.

      How can they possibly achieve the same level of oversight with such little manpower? There should be as little as possible to oversee!!!!

      I admit I am a crazy zealot about ron paul but, only because I think things are really going in the wrong direction. When I discuss him with people they usually say ok I'll vote for him and I say no, read up on him because I think if you do you will go out and convince 10 other people to vote for him.

      --
      "A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
    205. Re:well.. by websaber · · Score: 1

      Sure like David Duke. There is nothing the rabble rouser's like better than to create a monster just to have the fun of bringing it down. The problem is you need a monster.

      --
      "A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
    206. Re:well.. by Veinor · · Score: 1

      I agree; the federal Department is too decentralized to be doing any good. But here we disagree; I think that it should be given more power, while you think it should be less.

    207. Re:well.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Freedom of choice exists in the same way as you are not allowed to attack other people, or damage other peoples property or as in this case show some respect for a least a few minutes every four years for the people that have sacrificed the lives to preserve the democracy you enjoy but are not willing to make even the most minimum effort to support.

      Immature, non participation, and simply expecting other people to provide you with democracy and the freedoms it does provide, other people to speak out against injustice and ensure everybody has access to the law, other people to risk their future to ensure equal political representation, that is just cowardly, lazy and apathetic.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    208. Re:well.. by moxitek · · Score: 1

      First thing within a minute of inauguration, in this order:

      1. Abolish the illegal and corrupt institution that is the Federal Reserve.
      2. Abolish the illegal and corrupt institution that is the IRS and the Federal Income Tax that pays the illegal interest on the illegal money borrowed from the illegal Federal Reserve.
      3. Get assassinated.

      ...hey, at least I accomplished the two things that would completely re-invigorate the American Socio-Economic System.

      Of course, I could just vote for Ron Paul and let him get assassinated in my place. There's a reason for the smear, people. He wants to destroy those two opressive institutions and there's no wonder that some very powerful people are against him.

    209. Re:well.. by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Woah... wait a moment. So you're saying we should be lax with illegal immigrants, while our neighbor to the south, Mexico, will put you in jail for a couple of years just for your first offense of being illegally in their country? Yes yes, I get it that you think Mexico's doing things the right way. I still call you an idiot for advocating we try to turn US of A into another Mexico.
      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    210. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Remove the income limit on SS / Medicare taxes. (It's the #1 reason why the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the super rich and the reason SS is having trouble in the first place.)

      Incorrect, Social Security is in trouble because the federal government has been embezzling from the fund via unnecessary entitlements and pork barrel projects for the last fifty years.

    211. Re:well.. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I hate the idea of the Fed managing individuals; financially, physically, sexually. Just say NO!

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    212. Re:well.. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      This is because the rest of the world has outsourced defense to the US for all the manufacturing jobs.
      If your analysis doesn't take the global view, I feel that it's preliminary.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    213. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1

      So you actually admit then, that what socialists want is a political system entirely based on human envy.

      It is virtually an infinite sum game. If you have any kind of talent, you can create opportunity. Even if you just have enough talent to work and get by, you will be well off enough. It does matter that America's working poor are much better off. They lead virtual lives of comfort compared to those before them. It is entirely due to economic freedom and advancement - that is, markets and voluntary trade. There is even a stronger correlation between economic prosperity and lifespan. Prosperity leads to more investment in medical technology, and thus longer lifespan. The Cuban living conditions are terrible. Sure the wealth is more equal, but they live in absolute poverty. You'd have to be crazy to choose life there. You don't have to wonder why Americans aren't beating down their door...

      You can't tell me that a CEO shouldn't make more than twelve times minimum wage. I would say why not? They are the ones who have the talent to direct investment capital properly, thus earning a decent return. Even the poor are better off when those decisions are made correctly.

      Any random person doesn't deserve a CEO's extra money any more than they do. A political system of heavy, forced redistribution that you propose isn't moral or just. Economics has shown that voluntary trade leads to prosperity. It's the reason we aren't all subsistence farmers, scraping by between drought cycles and crop failures.

    214. Re:well.. by joggle · · Score: 1

      2) Both Tiger Woods and Steven Spielberg have worked extremely hard for little or no pay at all before they reached the threshold needed to become international stars. Also, they have taken a great risk as they could well both have become under achievers in the field of sports and arts, which aren't exactly reliable income sources.

      What a horrible example. Tiger Woods was born to a rich family. His father had custom clubs made for him so that he could start playing golf as soon as he could walk (I kid you not). He started making an income from golf before being old enough to go to college. In addition, he was a child prodigy. From his wikipedia article:

      At age three, Woods shot a 48 over nine holes at the Navy Golf Club in Cypress, California, and at age five, he appeared in Golf Digest and on ABC's That's Incredible. In 1984 at the age of eight he won the 9-10 boys' event, the youngest age group available, at the Junior World Golf Championships.

      He never lost growing up so I don't think there was much risk on his part in choosing golf as a career. If things didn't pan out (highly, highly unlikely), he could have always fallen back on his family's wealth.

      Steven Spielberg was also born to a rich family. It's not as much risk to work for peanuts when your family can back you up if things don't work out. Hence the inherent advantage of being lucky and being born to a rich family versus a poor one. How many international sports stars in sports like tennis or golf were born to poor families? Very, very few.

      As for your arguments about the free market, that's exactly what the US had before passing the sixteenth amendment. It got to the point that individuals such as Cornelius Vanderbilt were more powerful than much of the government and could even afford to control their own cities, enforcing poor working conditions with their own private police force. And if you thought Bill Gates was bad, he had nothing on these guys as far as crooked business practices are concerned.

      The reason the 16th amendment was able to pass was because the public was fed up with the enormous income discrepancy between the majority of the population and the incredibly wealthy and perceived this tax as a way to redistribute the wealth (which it initially did and still does to this day to a much lesser extent). To get a feel for what it was like, try searching for 'sixteenth amendment' and similar on the New York Times archive. Any article before about 1930 (I think) is free to view in PDF format.
    215. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, even with all those expensive projects, you're probably saving us money.

    216. Re:well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Super-wealthy people are actually asset SINKS, sponges to mop out the surplus that would otherwise turn economy into a stalemate of massive self-indulgence. If their wealth was used to make other, worthy and useful, people too satisfied and lazy, that would be a disaster!

      We would have to invent whole new class of social predators to rob the producing stratum. The state and taxation system cannot take up that (predator) role, because it is tied into a feedback loop by democratic system (for absolutist monarchies it works the same, only popular vote is in arms and elections are typically spaced more apart)! So, instead, you allow a number of people to get enormously rich and when the state sucks the money out of economy through THEIR income tax, there is no popular dissent about it.

    217. Re:well.. by KiltedKnight · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, I get it that you think Mexico's doing things the right way. I still call you an idiot for advocating we try to turn US of A into another Mexico.
      And yet with your do-nothing policy, that's EXACTLY what would happen... the US would turn into another Mexico.
      --
      OCO is Loco
    218. Re:well.. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul's official newsletter contained racist articles penned in his name. This is a fact, acknowledged by the Paul campaign. No. The newsletter was in his name. The articles were not. A person can assume that the articles in a newsletter reflects the views and opinions of the person who initiated the newsletter, until it becomes clear that they do not.

      And here's the kicker: You insist that Ron Paul's views are not important. You insist that the assumption is paramount, and trumps any actual information.
      This is not honest, smart, nor productive.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    219. Re:well.. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      So you actually admit then, that what socialists want is a political system entirely based on human envy.

      It would be nice if this argument was about "how we should train people to be." I'm merely reporting the fact that people evaluate their own happiness by using the success of their "peers" as a benchmark. The "big study" in this regard indicated that half of a (probably non-representative) group would prefer a 50% drop in absolute income, if it meant being on the top of the heap, not the bottom.

      It's more complex than that, because in reality (rather than the hypotheticals posed by that study) a lot depends on who you measure yourself against and how you view your own opportunities for improving your relative standing. Because we are a nation steeped in the mythos of (if not necessarily the fact of) great income mobility, income inequality is less determinative of our happiness than, say, Europeans. Nevertheless, the point stands: the poorer people do in comparison to those around them, the worse they feel. How they're doing in comparison to someone living in the bronze age, or a Bangladeshi straw hut? Not so much.

      You're a clever person, so I leave it to you to speculate on why that might be.

      It is virtually an infinite sum game.

      Not by any coherent definition of the word "infinite". The mistaken idea you're repeating is the assumption that economic growth can be continued forever. This idea yanks economic activity out from its natural place, which is a subsystem of our finite, natural world. It's an insane thought, especially given that we have only a couple of centuries of growth (most of which took place when human activity was a relatively minor part of the natural world.

      As insane as the idea is, it does have one desirable feature for folks with a certain ideological bent. So long as "we can always make more", it's easy to avoid dealing with the idea that anyone has too much, or that existing wealth might need to be redistributed.

      If you have any kind of talent, you can create opportunity. Even if you just have enough talent to work and get by, you will be well off enough. It does matter that America's working poor are much better off. They lead virtual lives of comfort compared to those before them. It is entirely due to economic freedom and advancement - that is, markets and voluntary trade. There is even a stronger correlation between economic prosperity and lifespan. Prosperity leads to more investment in medical technology, and thus longer lifespan. The Cuban living conditions are terrible. Sure the wealth is more equal, but they live in absolute poverty. You'd have to be crazy to choose life there. You don't have to wonder why Americans aren't beating down their door...

      That's a dangerous word, "entirely". Not all scientific advancement is due to "markets and voluntary trade", and I would suggest that a technically advanced society with an awkward, command-and-control economy is going to yield a higher standard of material wealth than a primitive society with a well-oiled "free market".

      I'm not claiming that Cuba is a paradise, though from the pictures the weather seems nice and the people seem friendly. What I am saying is that, if they can achieve such long and happy lives despite shocking material deprivation and a lack of many political freedoms that I would sorely miss, maybe there is something to be learned from their culture. But the idea that we could possibly become poorer and happier at the same time flies in the face of capitalist ideology.

      You can't tell me that a CEO shouldn't make more than twelve times minimum wage. I would say why not? They are the ones who have the talent to direct investment capital properly, thus earning a decent return. Even the poor are better off when those decisions are made correctly.

      I would say that, if you could get the

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    220. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the interesting comments...

      Nevertheless, the point stands: the poorer people do in comparison to those around them, the worse they feel. How they're doing in comparison to someone living in the bronze age, or a Bangladeshi straw hut? Not so much.

      And if they feel bad, they are free to work themselves up the ladder, as thousands of people have done. It's not just someone living in the Bronze age - even just one or two generations ago, the difference is staggering.

      Maybe it's not infinate... but I still think it's much more fluid than socialists would have us believe. A case in point would be my own dad, who grew up very poor and who worked very hard to build a successful life for himself and his family. Who knows whether economic growth can continue forever... likely there are peaks and valleys, as in everything else. But I'm not sure what that has to do with acquiring wealth. I don't think people being poor and happy flies in the face of capitalism any more than the notion that money buys happiness, which we could say is equally erroneous.
      Can people be happy poor? Of course they can. But if you're poor, the prospect of becoming wealthy can also be just as alluring. And there's virtually no chance of that in Cuba. That doesn't even cover how, in a uniformly poor society, people will simply create other ways of measuring status. So what is the difference? Not everyone in a poor society can be in a higher status profession.

      Until the implosion, Enron's Ken Lay was considered one of the true star quarterbacks, worth every penny the investors were paying him and more.

      It's interesting that you note the Enron case. I think that's more of a case against the corporate state we have today, rather than capitalism gone bad. I think without all that "corporate personhood" nonsense (protection from the state) the Enron folks would have been much more accountable. The state's oversight of capitalism can even create a false sense of security in investors, who blindly think that if the government regulates industry enough they don't have to be so careful...

      We already have forced wealth redistribution in this country. We just call it 'no-bid contracts.'

      And the no-bid contract method of distributing income from the poor to the rich is every bit as wrong as other forced redistribution.

      There are two ways to look at "what people deserve". One is to ask, "Who is responsible for creating this wealth?"

      In a voluntary market economy, I would say that the division of labor is what's responsible for creating wealth. It allows us to focus on what we are most interested in doing, rather than having to grow all our own food and make our clothes. I would agree that our economy is broken... but not in the way you suggest.
    221. Re:well.. by Aciel · · Score: 1

      How would you immediately reduce military spending? It would put lots of people out of jobs. (Not that I think it shouldn't be done--I agree with you. But you can't really do it immediately.)

    222. Re:well.. by megaditto · · Score: 1

      By not implementing the policies of Mexico we would turn into a Mexico?

      Why haven't we turned into a Britain, Germany, Ireland, Norway, or Poland then?
      (Hint: we welcomed their people, not their misguided policies or their predjudices).

      Even your relatives strolled right in, and yet you want to shut the door on the next guy? Why are you being such a dick?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    223. Re:well.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like you believe a government has any right to to tell anyone what they can or can't do

      It doesn't. Governments do not have Rights. Governments have Powers. And the US Government, like most of the rest of them, have the Power to tell people what they can or can't do.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    224. Re:well.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul is the only candidate out there talking about actually shrinking the government in size.

      I used to believe in shrinking the government. But I got over that bit of self-delusion a decade or so back. Ron Paul, whether he likes it or not, whether he believes it or not, will NOT shrink the Federal government.

      Because that can only be done by the Congress. And they sure aren't going to do it for him, or anyone else short of God Almighty coming down and telling them to do so. Or being first up against the wall, come the revolution. Whichever happens first.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    225. Re:well.. by G4Z · · Score: 1

      No, in fact he simply shares a common ancestor with a monk.. hang on, am I commenting on the right story here?

    226. Re:well.. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I was just pointed to a "bipartisan study" that I found revealing: Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well? I call it "bipartisan" because two of the principle authors are from the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (two think tanks not known for their staunch leftist agendas).

      Key findings:

      * Americans are far more optimistic about their chances for upward economic mobility than Europeans. But commitment to that belief is eroding.
      * Europeans (excluding the UK) actually have better economic mobility than the United States (as measured by comparing parents' incomes to those of their children). Now, some of this may be due to the fact that the gap between rich and poor is narrower, so it's a smaller trek to the top. But as I pointed out earlier, positional standing is important.
      * Men in their thirties today make less than their fathers did, despite being significantly more productive. To me, this is one of those indications that our economic system is broken, because it means that the people at the top of the heap (the ones cutting the checks) have more say in how the pie gets distributed than the people at the bottom (the ones earning the checks). Some argue that productivity gains aren't equally distributed among the population, and therefore income gains shouldn't be either. But I don't think that comes close to explaining Figure 2.

      Thought-provoking stuff.

      Why would European countries have more economic mobility? I've heard all the horror stories about trying to start a business in Europe. The bureaucracy, the paperwork, the risk of hiring employees who will be difficult to fire. But there are also clear advantages to trying to start a business or get an education in a country that is less beholden to the largest corporate interests, and has a more effective safety net than the U.S.

      In the U.S., in order to keep your health insurance, you have to continue holding down your current, full-time job until your side business is successful enough that it can pay for both your lifestyle and your family's insurance. Unless you're main job is so fuxx0rd that you can run your side business from your desk, that's a difficult proposition.

      Also, in America, those who start their education are much less likely to complete it, because so many (and especially those with the poorest finances) have to "work their way through". This sets up all sorts of negative interactions between work, school, and family life. Often, something has to give. Europeans are more likely to be accessing state-financed education, which means they're going to be able to devote themselves fully to their education, and not leave college with crushing student loans. Thus, they'll be in a better position to get the capital to start a business.

      I'm not saying that we should do everything like Europe, any more than I was saying that we should be more like Cuba. But in some ways, programs that you might consider "socialist" in character can promote economic opportunity.

      It's great that you recognize the ickiness of the corporate state we have today. Unlike you, I consider that sad state of affairs to be the natural outcome of unregulated capitalism. Unless controls are put in place, wealthy interests will always use their current position to break the backs of labor, of their poorer competitors, or of any other interests that threaten their own. It helps if they can buy favorable regulations through bribery... I mean, campaign contributions to the candidate that will do the best job for America and we don't expect anything in return I swear to god. But it's not necessary. If the government got out of the regulation business and relegated itself to enforcing contracts and ensuring that corporations didn't use violence against their workers, corporate interests would try to corrupt those functions as well.

      Ultimately, the envy I spoke of earlier is probably the le

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    227. Re:well.. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      (I'm not a US citizen or resident.)

      It's just silly to allow anyone into your country without controls.

      Not allowing free immigration is one of the very few ways a Country can pick who is part of it - whether as a legal resident or a citizen.

      Citizenship by birth is popular but it's just an average way of filling the ranks ;).

      I suggest that a well thought out immigration policy can benefit a country significantly in the long term.

      Immigrants have served the US well in the past - nuclear technology, aerospace etc.

      Some countries have rules where if you put in X million dollars you can become a citizen or PR but in theory a country could use other less materialistic criteria.

      Having low cost labour to pick fruit and do other stuff citizens don't want to do has its advantages, but perhaps you might wish to rethink the "children of immigrants born in the country automatically become citizens" policy.

      You don't necessarily have to kick them out, but at least you will have options. You could select for traits that you desire - personality, intelligence, looks, physical ability, latent genes, immunity to diseases (via blood tests of course) etc.

      --
    228. Re:well.. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yes you own your computer. But what happens if someone steals your computer?

      That's where government, rule of law and due process comes in. You don't get to be judge, jury and "executioner" over the person who steals your computer (sure in some cases you get to shoot them, but there are still _laws_ that govern those cases). The government MUST maintain its monopoly over violence at all times - it does this via the police, the courts and other systems. If it is unable or unwilling to do it, society can NOT scale beyond clans (small mutually trusting groups of humans)- look at Africa and other places for examples - mob rule, extrajudiciary executions etc.

      If enough people believe "there's no such thing as stealing a computer" then the relevant laws could be changed/repealed.

      Same goes if enough people believe "there's no such thing as illegal immigration".

      But AFAIK most people in the US don't share your view at all, and so there is such a thing as illegal immigration.

      I bet most of the illegal immigrants won't agree with you if they thought about it - after all most of those Mexicans didn't sneak all the way into the US just to end up in the "United States of Mexico", there was a reason why they left Mexico ;).

      You don't like the way things are? You should show why your way would be better, rather than basically saying it just should be that way.

      --
    229. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Yes, interesting stuff indeed...

      Perhaps there really is more mobility in Europe. Maybe it's because the corporate state is more entrenched over here. I tend to think more and more that corporations who are the most successful in lobbying the state for benefits that their competitors do not get end up stifling that mobility. But the question of mobility doesn't solve everything either. It doesn't answer whether the poor here are better off than the poor there.

      The health insurance situation is a very tough one here. I often point people to this article to begin understanding why health care has gotten so out of control. Again it has to do with an obvious lack of competition and the leading providers being entrenched in the state.

      Perhaps rising education costs can also be attributed to much higher demand due to government subsidies. The idea of having free markets in education have been kicking around for some time as you will see here: http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fm.htm

      I'm convinced that education is in a such deplorable condition in this country precisely because of just how much the state has managed to get control of it. The homeschool movement and private vouchers seem to be the best weapon we have against the crushing weight of public education...

      I have a hard time attributing the concentration of wealth to unregulated capitalism because we have hardly had that, despite popular belief. It seems easy to complain about how much wealth individuals have accumulated while not realizing the extent to which the state aggregates wealth to itself and gives it to politically well-connected contractors, defense orgs and the like. If corporations try to corrupt the state's simple regulation of contracts, perhaps the best thing to ultimately do is get rid of the state all together. If that's ultimately impossible, then we should try to approach that goal as much as we can. When it comes down to it, companies are beholden to consumers. If they don't provide services that people need they will cease to exist.

      I would hope envy is the least important reason, because it seems to fall flat upon any examination. The common theme here seems to be that the power of the state is used by corporations to abuse people. The goal then, should be to limit state power as much as possible (if not completely) and let people decide which goods are most important to them. The more regulating power the state has, the more scales are tipped in favor of corporate interests. It seems foolish to say that a much larger state apparatus wouldn't be as easily corrupted as the one we have now.

      BTW - I graduated from BYU in 2002. The mountains are probably the only thing I miss about Utah, hehe...

    230. Re:well.. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1
      The medical article had some interesting food for thought, but also some peculiar contradictions. For example, on the one hand he claims that medical malpractice is killing an airplane full of people every day, while in the same breath claiming that doctors are paying way too much in insurance. Also, I thought the crack against Joycelyn Elders showed a basic disregard for truth, which didn't endear me to the author at all.

      I'm also unsure about the implicit claims in the article (the AMA was founded with the primary goal of increasing incomes in the medical profession, unnecessary surgeries are regularly performed to generate incomes). I read the Wikipedia article on the Flexner Report (the one that ended up shutting down half of all medical schools), and it seems that a lot of the schools really were third-rate institutions putting out substandard doctors. I think we would be better off with more doctors. Even if it meant worse doctors were entering the profession, doctors would be working fewer hours (leading to fewer mistakes and more time for training) and the best doctors could focus on the trickiest cases. While the "Lexus Standard" may have unacceptable negative consequences, I thought he failed when he tried to show that the standard itself was illusory.

      You seem to be of the opinion that corporations use the state as their sock puppet. I fully agree. But I'm still failing to see how we'd be better off getting rid of the state altogether. Better to make the workings of the state as transparent and as responsive to the needs of the public as possible. You could argue that the system is too corrupt to allow for such reform, but not without applying the same argument to your own plans for scaling back the size and scope of the government.

      I would hope envy is the least important reason, because it seems to fall flat upon any examination.
      I'm not sure what you mean by this. Positional consumption is a very real, well documented phenomenon. Maybe it doesn't jive with your notion of how people ought to feel about their relative situations, but humans are a stubborn lot.
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    231. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how the things you mention are contradictory...

      I guess my question is why the schools should have been shut down instead of allowing them a chance to improve their standards. Clearly to restrict medical competition.

      Ever since the Tammany Hall political machine days, people have been trying to make the government more transparent. I don't think they have succeeded very much. Indeed it pretty much seems like a hopeless cause. When a majority of people put up with those in power who make arbitrary decisions in favor of their friends, the prospect of reform seems bleak.

      And the envy reason for socialism falls flat because people will always have some reason to envy their neighbor. Not because it doesn't jive with my notions or anything...

    232. Re:well.. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like you believe a government has any right to to tell anyone what they can or can't do.

      You're right as long as they aren't harming or violating other's rights.

      Falcon
    233. Re:well.. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but illegal immigration is illegal because our infrastructure would be totally overwhelmed if it wasn't. The federal government didn't just arbitrarily decide it would be a good idea to be exclusionary. Our health care system alone is falling apart because they are obligated by law to care for those without the means to pay. I'm paying over $300 / month for health care insurance, and I have an $8000 annual deductible. That's just one aspect.

      Immigration was made illegal for racial and religious reason, or because of other prejudices. Go back to the mid 1850s for an example. From 1854 to 1856 the Know Nothings pushed for laws making it illegal for Irish Catholics to immigrate to the US. In 1882 it was the Chinese who were discriminated against, with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Though these are the only examples I recall now there have been other examples wherein some tried to have laws passed or were successful in having them passed that excluded groups of people from immigration.

      Falcon
    234. Re:well.. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      That Paul is either a bigot or a fool is self evident to anyone reading what went out under his name for decades

      Do you have a reference this went on for decades? Last I heard it wasn't but 2 years at most.

      Falcon
    235. Re:well.. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Your idea that the answer to racist violence and intimidation is to "just move somewhere else" is akin to saying "let them eat cake".

      Perhaps you missed it but he did say "get the authorities replaced or move".

      Falcon
    236. Re:well.. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I used to believe in shrinking the government. But I got over that bit of self-delusion a decade or so back. Ron Paul, whether he likes it or not, whether he believes it or not, will NOT shrink the Federal government.

      Because that can only be done by the Congress. And they sure aren't going to do it for him, or anyone else short of God Almighty coming down and telling them to do so. Or being first up against the wall, come the revolution. Whichever happens first.

      And I used to believe in expanding government. But I got over my self-delusion about two decades ago.

      While as president Ron Paul wouldn't be able to actually get rid of all the government he could veto all spending, in which case unless congress overrode the veto the federal government would have to shut down. I'd love to see that.

      Falcon
    237. Re:well.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      While as president Ron Paul wouldn't be able to actually get rid of all the government he could veto all spending, in which case unless congress overrode the veto the federal government would have to shut down. I'd love to see that.

      Well, no. What would happen is that Congress would pass a continuing resolution to keep spending going until they could pass a budget. And they'd pass a new one every so often to keep things going indefinitely, if that's what it took. Which might leave Congress looking bad, but would definitely leave the President looking like a complete idiot, after the Congresscritters got finished making speeches about his "obstructionism" or some such.

      You might also remember how much political fallout there was last time someone tried to force the issue that way. It wasn't pretty for the Party that did it. So unless Ron Paul has some plans for destroying the Republican Party (which he may, for all I know), and making the country a One Party state, he can't practically do that.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    238. Re:well.. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      While as president Ron Paul wouldn't be able to actually get rid of all the government he could veto all spending, in which case unless congress overrode the veto the federal government would have to shut down. I'd love to see that.

      Well, no. What would happen is that Congress would pass a continuing resolution to keep spending going until they could pass a budget.

      In order to pass one they'd still have to override his veto, which I find unlikely unless either Democrats or Republicans are able to get large enough of a lead in congress. It would take too much compromising otherwise.

      but would definitely leave the President looking like a complete idiot, after the Congresscritters got finished making speeches about his "obstructionism" or some such.

      He could simply point out to the public that the Constitution does not authorize many of things that are being funded and that congress supports unconstitutional things. Take the Department of Education, not only is it not authorized but it's actually a local issue, at the state level at most. Nor does the Constitution say anything about any Department of Energy.

      Not that I would ever be elected, I wouldn't even want to run, but if I were I'd say that unless congress gave me a Constitutional bill I would veto it.

      Falcon
    239. Re:well.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      He could simply point out to the public that the Constitution does not authorize many of things that are being funded and that congress supports unconstitutional things.

      If you can imagine that that would be an acceptable excuse to the American public when you told them they wouldn't be getting their SSA checks this month, or that the airlines were all being shutdown (you do know that Air Traffic Control is a Federal thing, right?), or that merchant shipping would not be allowed to enter or leave (or move within, for that matter) the USA this year, then you are a bigger idiot than any I've had the privilege of witnessing before today.

      If Ron Paul were to make that speech as an excuse for shutting down the Government, he'd find his popularity rating hitting 1%.

      In order to pass one they'd still have to override his veto, which I find unlikely unless either Democrats or Republicans are able to get large enough of a lead in congress. It would take too much compromising otherwise.

      It would take almost no compromise at all - because BOTH Parties would oppose him completely on this one. The Veto Override would be on his desk within an hour of the Veto. And BOTH Parties would spend the next month or three distancing themselves from the lunatic in the White House.

      Or do you really believe that a significant number of Republicans in Congress are aching to reduce their own personal power? Dream on!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    240. Re:well.. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If you can imagine that that would be an acceptable excuse to the American public when you told them they wouldn't be getting their SSA checks this month

      Yes I can imagine it. Because I am disabled I get SSI. However he can demand congress send him a bill to fund these programs. In it he could say he wanted a way people could opt out of the programs as well.

      or that the airlines were all being shutdown (you do know that Air Traffic Control is a Federal thing, right?)

      Same thing here, he could demand congress present a bill to pay for air traffic control. He could also demand that the airlines be the ones who pay for it. I'd rather see those who use something to pay for it and not those who don't. Don't get me wrong I love flying, and would like to get a private pilot's license. As such when I flew and used air traffic control I'd be willing to pay a fee to do so. That would be a much lower cost than the plane or fuel, I'd also be willing to pay a fee on for the maintenance of the airport strip.

      or that merchant shipping would not be allowed to enter or leave (or move within, for that matter) the USA this year

      How so? Shippers could easily pay for the running and maintenance of ports just as with airports.

      If Ron Paul were to make that speech as an excuse for shutting down the Government, he'd find his popularity rating hitting 1%.

      Congress could just as easily be blamed. Even better, he could say "I told you in the campaign I'd shut down government if congress didn't sent me a bill that was constitutional. Congress didn't send me one so I'm shutting down government."

      It would take almost no compromise at all - because BOTH Parties would oppose him completely on this one. The Veto Override would be on his desk within an hour of the Veto. And BOTH Parties would spend the next month or three distancing themselves from the lunatic in the White House.

      No compromise? Do you really think there's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? They are share similarities, they are both for big government, but they disagree on where to spend the money. Democrats will demand big social and welfare programs whereas Republicans will demand big law enforcement and military spending, as well as corporate welfare. I seriously doubt the parties will compromise with each other. Any such bill they did hammer out would bring a howl of protests from various factions, whether "conservative", "liberal", neo-conservative, neo-liberal, religious right, or socialists, maybe all of them at the same tyme.

      Falcon
    241. Re:well.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      However he can demand congress send him a bill to fund these programs. In it he could say he wanted a way people could opt out of the programs as well.

      I'm sure his demands will cause Congress to immediately begin to do exactly as he says in every way. Or perhaps not. He can "demand" anything. What he gets is what they want to give him.

      he could demand congress present a bill to pay for air traffic control. He could also demand that the airlines be the ones who pay for it.

      And these demands are likely to be met by hearty guffaws as well.

      How so? Shippers could easily pay for the running and maintenance of ports just as with airports.

      Noone ever explained Customs and Immigration to you? Ships can't enter the USA without first getting approval from the Customs people, and then the IRS gets to talk to them about tariffs. No Federal Government means no Customs, which means merchant shipping stops just like the airlines.

      BLOCKQUOTE>Congress could just as easily be blamed. Even better, he could say "I told you in the campaign I'd shut down government if congress didn't sent me a bill that was constitutional. Congress didn't send me one so I'm shutting down government."

      Possibly. Don't bet a lot on it, since Ron Paul has a reputation as one of the lunatic fringe. Most likely, he gets the blame. And giving that reason gets him laughed at.

      No compromise? Do you really think there's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?

      On the one single important issue, there is no difference - neither Party has any interest in surrendering any Federal power at all. Which means they'll be united against a President who wants to reduce Federal power to the Constitutionally mandated limits.

      Note the Reagan, who was an immensely popular President didn't manage to shrink the Federal government one iota, even though that was one of his nominal goals. Ron Paul, who won't be a popular President (noone knows him from Adam's housecat), will get whipped into line rather quickly, if he decides to shutdown the Federal government and refuses to sign a Continuing Resolution to keep things functioning until differences can be worked out.

      Note, by the way, that I in no way approve of the Federal power grab over the last three-quarter century. But I know enough to know that we can't turn the clock back on it. And believing that we can is a sign of self-delusion. If Ron Paul really believes that (as opposed to saying it to win votes), then he's not fit to be President.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    242. Re:well.. by HunkirDowne · · Score: 1

      Your probably a great person and all that but your comments are not so great.

      I used to live in Austin. Cool town. Great music. Your analogy of the NAACP in Austin being like a Jewish organization in Nazi Germany is pretty lame and without foundation. If you'd ever taken the time to get to know Austin you would have visited some of the music venues. You'd see people from all walks of life (and races if that's your best way to describe people) intermingled listening to whatever was up there (pick your style of music and it was performed to near perfection and always fun).

      Are there 'racists' in Austin? Absolutely! I've lived in many areas of these great United States and have seen evidence of race-based prejudice everywhere I've been so it's not just the South or Texas that is to blame. Some of the more racially prejudicial individuals I've met were natives of the state I was living in up in the top right corner of the country -- one of the more 'progressive' states. I just hope they weren't representative of the rest of the people in the state. I found their assumption that I was prejudiced against black-skinned folk because I was from the South to be in and of itself a form of prejudice.

      I'm becoming ever convinced that the ones that cry 'racist' the loudest are usually racist themselves but aren't smart enough to realize it.

      Remember, there are always two types of people: us and them. If you're not one of us, you must be one of them. But what happens when we get to know them and realize they are just like us?

      --
      insert pithy comment here
  2. Resign by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And let someone who knows what they're doing operate.

    1. Re:Resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interns??

      Wait. This isn't Fark???

    2. Re:Resign by eln · · Score: 1

      No no, the correct thing to do is to employ a shadow government that holds all the power, and then operate merely as a figurehead. That way, you get all the perks without any of the responsibility.

    3. Re:Resign by PinkPanther · · Score: 3, Funny

      employ a shadow government that holds all the power, and then operate merely as a figurehead

      Wow, what a concept. Could you imagine the president of the most powerful nation in the world not actually being smart enough for the position?

      ...er...wait a sec....

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    4. Re:Resign by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hey! Our political opponents never stop trying to think of new ways to make us look bad, and neither do we.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Resign by Erioll · · Score: 1

      No no, the correct thing to do is to employ a shadow government that holds all the power, and then operate merely as a figurehead. That way, you get all the perks without any of the responsibility. Actually you get very few perks with ALL of the responsibility when things go wrong. No power to actually do anything, yet you're the one blamed when things go wrong.
    6. Re:Resign by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      To quote Frank Zappa:
      "Look at all the people who've been president of the United States. Could I do any worse?"

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hold on to power for as long as possible to prevent anyone who knows what they're doing from operating.

    8. Re:Resign by apt142 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our politicians learning?

    9. Re:Resign by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our politicians learning?
      __
      Why, they're perfect.

      Politics comes from the greek poli, meaning many and tics, meaning bloodsucking insects.

    10. Re:Resign by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      "Any person capable of acquiring a position of power should be no means be allowed to occupy that position"

      No idea who said it first, but it sort of does ring true.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    11. Re:Resign by cliffski · · Score: 1

      I always used to think it would be quite an easy job. Don't spend money giving weapons to religious maniacs in other countries who may then use them against you, don't give tax cuts to people who are already stupidly rich, invest in healthcare yada yada... But actually once I sat down and simulated the whole thing as accurately as I could , and play tested the thing, I realised that it's a total bastard of a job. The main dilemma is that you can't do fuck all unless you are elected. And staying elected means being popular with a wide range of people who have a wide range of views. You might think you know what you will do when you get elected, but the pressure to make compromises just to stay in power is very high, and before you know it, you are passing laws you don't vaguely agree with it, and cutting spending in areas you strongly support, just to keep key swing voters happy. You pick 'your people', keep em just happy enough, and then do any crazy shit you can to get the swing voters to tip you over 50% on a regular basis. In many way, I've come to think that the best form of government is a benign dictatorship. they can do what needs doing without any pandering. However, it's a bit lucky dip getting a benign one :D

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    12. Re:Resign by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The core of the idea goes all the way back to Plato's Republic. One of the reasons for establishing a philosopher king class was to remove the influence of ambition.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Resign by pla · · Score: 1

      Resign
      And let someone who knows what they're doing operate.


      Close to my idea, so I'll respond to you rather than start a new thread...

      Step 1: Pick one of the non-whackjob libertarians as my VP, and pack my cabinet with moderates from every political party I can think of except the Asses and Elephants.

      Step 2: Order NASA to build a new space-shuttle - Not the current crappy STS models, one of the cool ones we've seen prototypes and concept drawings of for years but never seem to get around to building.

      Step 3: At the launch party, steal said new shuttle and distract attention from my VP and cabinet so they can actually get things done.

    14. Re:Resign by dpilot · · Score: 1

      > I've come to think that the best form of government is a benign dictatorship. they can do what needs doing
      > without any pandering. However, it's a bit lucky dip getting a benign one :D

      I would argue that there are enough idealistic and benevolent people about that it really isn't hard to find a benign dictator.
      I would argue that the real problems are in keeping that dictator benign, and getting a *second* benign dictator to replace him, when the first leaves the job.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    15. Re:Resign by dpilot · · Score: 1

      You forgot about...

      Step 4: Make a really hot cup of tea, to help you calculate how utterly improbable Steps 1-3 are.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    16. Re:Resign by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1
      Or, alternatively, you get elected, do whatever it is that you said you would do in your campaign (and precious little else), and then make a graceful exit at the end of your term, having stuck to what you said and not sold out just to grasp for more power. The problem with that democracy game is revealed very quickly on their webpage:

      The object of the game is to stay in power as long as possible Any person who has this as their goal is practically guaranteed to turn out to be a bad president^Wleader of any sort.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    17. Re:Resign by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      I'd represent the needs of the working class people.

      It is no harder to do that than to simply listen to them.

      The real problem would be getting the career politicians
      in The House and Senate who are bought and paid for by lobbyists
      to get on board.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    18. Re:Resign by sorak · · Score: 1

      Resign...And let someone who knows what they're doing operate.

      Since the person chosen for VP is usually the guy who lost the primaries, that means that the next in line is probably less competent than you.

    19. Re:Resign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak for yourself, you insensitive clod.
      GWB

    20. Re:Resign by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be:
      Step 0: Make a really hot cup of tea, to help you calculate how utterly improbable becoming President is today.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    21. Re:Resign by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      I'd do that too, but not before using the "bully pulpit" to tell everyone to STOP VOTING FOR EITHER REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS. It's not the only choice you have, unless you think it is. As long as you do you're going to get the same old crap we've been getting. BOOT THEM BOTH OUT ON THEIR EARS. And tell the networks to OPEN UP THE DEBATES OR WE'RE TURNING OFF OUR SETS...

    22. Re:Resign by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I guess whether the tea is step 0 or 4 depends on whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, or whether you're forward-looking or backward-looking.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    23. Re:Resign by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      StupiMockiNazi claims that that reply should have been

      Why, their prefect!

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    24. Re:Resign by tic!lock · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Is our politicians learning?

        Are our politicians learning?

        There, fixed that for you :)

      tic

    25. Re:Resign by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a concept. Could you imagine the president of the most powerful nation in the world not actually being smart enough for the position? ...er...wait a sec....

      I'll take your comment as the joke it sounds like however to be fair [1] many Presidents have graduated from prestigious schools and Bush is no exception. Just from Harvard alone we have: "Seven Presidents of the United States have graduated from Harvard University. These include John Adams, John Quincy Adams, George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt. Bush and Hayes graduated from Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School, respectively, while the others graduated from Harvard College. Some fifty Nobel Prize winners have been associated with the University." So although Bush may seem stupid (and maybe he finished at the bottom of his class) he still graduated from the same school as Kennedy and other notable Presidents. Not everyone is good at public speaking either but that doesn't mean they are stupid; it does however mean they are easy targets for those who are ignorant and like making fun of people like they are in junior high school again.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    26. Re:Resign by novakyu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So although Bush may seem stupid (and maybe he finished at the bottom of his class) he still graduated from the same school as Kennedy and other notable Presidents. A C-average student graduating from a private university? That says only one thing—if he had not been born into the Bush family, he would have been lucky to have been a high-school drop-out.

      Did you know that MIT has a space in its application form asking whether a member of family or a relative has attended MIT (and I'd assume something similar for most prestigious private colleges)? While I agree that a great number of brilliant people have graduated from, have taught at, and have worket at Yale (and many others), you would be a fool not to realize that a significant fraction of students are there only on the strength of their (mostly social) background, not on academic merit.
    27. Re:Resign by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        Isn't that what we have?

        Noone said we'd like the results...

      tic

    28. Re:Resign by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      goes something like "Those who seek power are least likely to be suitable for the position." or something similar.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:Resign by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      (Score:0, redundant)

        Possibly the most perfect moderation in slashdot history. Kudos!

      tic

    30. Re:Resign by slicktasmanian · · Score: 1

      1. First, I would exempt anyone over 70 years of age from paying property taxes on their home, if they have lived in it for at least 30 years.
      2. Second, I would allow only property owners to vote on school levies.
      3. Third, I would require people receiving child support payments to provide itemized receipts on the money spent to those who paid the monthly payments for at least 85% of each monthly payment. (The IRS requires receipts, so why shouldn't the people paying the money get them?)
      4. Every American citizen's household should be given an American flag who wants one, providing they explain on a form how they shall display it at their residence and understand proper flag respect.
      5. Most of all, I would require that anyone born in this country can only be a legal citizen of the USA if both their parents are themselves US citizens first.
      6. I also would place land mines every 10 square feet in an area 5 miles wide from San Diego to the east coast of Texas along the Mexican border with plenty of signs warning of them in spanish.
      7. Every taxpaying citizen earning less than $25,000.00 per year shall get an extra $1000.00 in their tax refund.
      8. Every American household gets 5 free halogen light bulbs.
      9. Every American household gets a light activated socket for their outside light at their home, to reduce crime.
      10. I also would transfer 50,000 American troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, to finally get bin Laden.
      11. I would also allow family members of murdered victims to kill the convicted criminals, and also let them choose how they want to do it. (as well as convicted child molesters).
      12. I would also mandate that only US citizens can receive public assistance (welfare, food stamps, AFDC, etc.)
      13. I would set up a National Traffic Reporting Service broadcast on AM radio (similar to the National Weather Service now in place) in every city over 100,000 population to save fuel.
      14. I would also begin production of "mini-refineries" for gasoline in 25 of the 50 states immediately.
      15. Every American citizen that is currently working shall be given their birthday off with pay, paid for by the Feds.

    31. Re:Resign by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      No, because if they truly learned something new they would have to readjust their positions, and that would be flip-flopping!!

      So, according to public opinion, politicians are not allowed to grow smarter..

    32. Re:Resign by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plato's Republic: Philosopher suggests philosophers should be put in charge, decries the influence of political ambition.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    33. Re:Resign by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      I'd represent the needs of the working class people.

      I'd represent the needs of everyone if I were you, but I guess being poor and having a shit job makes you more important than others.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    34. Re:Resign by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      3. Third, I would require people receiving child support payments to provide itemized receipts on the money spent to those who paid the monthly payments for at least 85% of each monthly payment. (The IRS requires receipts, so why shouldn't the people paying the money get them?)

      Close, but not close enough. Either abolish mandatory child support or ban abortion. If mothers get a right to choose so do fathers.

      4. Every American citizen's household should be given an American flag who wants one, providing they explain on a form how they shall display it at their residence and understand proper flag respect.

      "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others"?

      8. Every American household gets 5 free halogen light bulbs.

      Why? This was just so off the wall (more so than the flags) that I just have to ask.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    35. Re:Resign by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      I'd represent the needs of everyone if I were you, but I guess being poor and having a shit job makes you more important than others.

      Working class can be ppl that make a decent living, ie. electricians, plumbers, etc.

      My house is paid off, and I earned every dollar honestly.

      The majority of Americans are working class, so I would be representing the majority.

      I also know it takes a good cabinet of honest ppl
      that know all facets of the position to make it work.

      I find it difficult to find yet another accounting or stock loophole
      for the rich, they have plenty already. John Kerry's taxes the year
      he ran for president were 11%, so cry me a river.

      Let's take the death tax they bemoan, its a misnomer, the first 1 million
      is tax free for everyone.

      I believe in a hand up, not a hand out, if you want welfare
      you will be stopped from reproducing like rabbits and having
      everyone else pay for it.

      As for me having a shit job at present I am not even working, I am working on my house,
      looking for the right job, and spending time with friends and family.

      I am living off my savings, not unemployment.

      I may return overseas as a contractor, most likely Bahrain.

      Before you fire off vitriolic short sighted posts, consider the
      fact that diverse ppl may be on the other end,
      such as this grey haired Ex-military American Indian.

      Adios~

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    36. Re:Resign by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Working class can be ppl that make a decent living, ie. electricians, plumbers, etc.

      "Working class" is usually a euphemism for poor laborers. Skilled trademen are pretty much middle class.

      My house is paid off, and I earned every dollar honestly....As for me having a shit job at present I am not even working, I am working on my house, looking for the right job, and spending time with friends and family. I am living off my savings, not unemployment.

      Congratulations. You're middle class. I'm sure that, for whatever political reasons, you want to feel some affinity for "the working class" but as that term is usually defined, that ain't you.

      The majority of Americans are working class, so I would be representing the majority.

      Maybe the way you define it. Not that that's a good argument anyway--the majority of Americans are white, after all. "Most" does not mean "all". And even by your definition, what about people who get paid $100,000/yr+ but aren't really multimillionaires? This includes folks like your doctor. People who get paid $100k+ per year aren't all useless. In fact, many of them are quite necessary and difficult to replace if they start leaving the country.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    37. Re:Resign by PinkPanther · · Score: 1
      In addition to Novakyu's comment (lots of student's are at Ivy-league schools because of social/financial backgrounds), recognize that my biggest beef with GWB is his complete lack of knowledge of anything beyond the borders of Texas. I don't give a damn if the President graduated from Harvard or from College Just Up The Street, most of the information taught will be the same regardless of where you go.

      But it is completely insane that the leader of a nation in the age of globalization and intertwined national economies would not know basic economic, geographic and political facts about their largest trading partners, key allies and potential threats.

      I don't blame GWB for becoming President; that took 1/2 of a nation (or just about). But for him to believe that he's surrounded himself by the brightest and best advisers and for blindly and blatantly ignoring any and all criticisms ... for that I place accountability of his dreadful leadership with him.

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    38. Re:Resign by huckamania · · Score: 1

      The reason W won is because half of the nation under-estimated him twice.

      As far as furthering the causes he cares about, he's done very well. In addition to getting elected twice, he's passed tax cuts, elected conservative judges and fought two wars against countries he considered enemies. His presidency will be remembered for 9/11, which, was not his fault. People will remember Katrina to a much lesser extent mainly because there was such stunning incompetence at all levels, not just federal.

      Even the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be passed on to the next president, and the longer they go on, the less they will be tied with Bush. Nixon and LBJ are more tied to Vietnam then JFK. The same will be true for Afghanistan and Iraq, and the horse could still fly. I know Democracy is passe, but a little whiff of it now and then can sometimes make all the difference in the world.

      I sometimes chuckle watching Bush play the buffoon, while always pulling a rabbit out of his hat at the end. Nominates weak political crony for the SC, gets an even stauncher conservative Chief Justice in return. Floats amnesty for illegals, makes amnesty untouchable by even the looniest lefty. He plays both sides of the aisle and no one even realizes it.

      This is a true story. My bro and I were season ticket holders for the Texas Rangers baseball when W was the mascot for the owners group. One night the stadium was almost completely empty and W decides to go chat with the remaining fans. He sit down next to us and we ask him if the Rangers are going to resign their biggest hitter. He goes into this spiel about how they're trying to keep him, but that it "takes two to tango" (swear to god, actual quote), and that they realize the fans like the guy, yada, yada. 3 days later, big hitter gets traded to the Yankees. The Yankees! Possibly the most hated team for any Texas fan. Couple of years later he sold his stake in the Rangers and made a ton of money.

    39. Re:Resign by crashlanding · · Score: 1

      Hi, First, I would make smoking 4:20 legal.
      Next, I would allow anyone with a "buzz" haircut to be a policeman.
      Then, I would require all Americans to take 5 weeks mandatory vacation time, regardless of their preexisting commitments.
      Finally, I would not let anyone with the name "Slick Willie" to be the First Man in the White House.

      _______________________ I am like Spock on the Star Ship Enterprise.

    40. Re:Resign by crashlanding · · Score: 1

      1. First, I would exempt anyone over 70 years of age from paying property taxes on their home, if they have lived in it for at least 30 years: Goody Good! 2. Second, I would allow only property owners to vote on school levies: Which levy is going to break? 3. Third, I would require people receiving child support payments to provide itemized receipts on the money spent to those who paid the monthly payments for at least 85% of each monthly payment. (The IRS requires receipts, so why shouldn't the people paying the money get them?): Great, that's all I need....to keep track of more receipts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4. Every American citizen's household should be given an American flag who wants one, providing they explain on a form how they shall display it at their residence and understand proper flag respect: Double Goody Good. 5. Most of all, I would require that anyone born in this country can only be a legal citizen of the USA if both their parents are themselves US citizens first: Good to have legal parents. Maybe require them to be married by the church also!!!!!! 6. I also would place land mines every 10 square feet in an area 5 miles wide from San Diego to the east coast of Texas along the Mexican border with plenty of signs warning of them in spanish: Ouch! I don't want my children playing down there!!!!!!1 7. Every taxpaying citizen earning less than $25,000.00 per year shall get an extra $1000.00 in their tax refund: Okay....and who's paying for the refund? 8. Every American household gets 5 free halogen light bulbs: and a few colored ones for Christmas!! 9. Every American household gets a light activated socket for their outside light at their home, to reduce crime: And a webcam to watch over their house when they are at work. 10. I also would transfer 50,000 American troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, to finally get bin Laden: He's in Monte Carlo, for Christ's sake! 11. I would also allow family members of murdered victims to kill the convicted criminals, and also let them choose how they want to do it. (as well as convicted child molesters): OOOHHH. 12. I would also mandate that only US citizens can receive public assistance (welfare, food stamps, AFDC, etc.): Yep, that's a winner! 13. I would set up a National Traffic Reporting Service broadcast on AM radio (similar to the National Weather Service now in place) in every city over 100,000 population to save fuel: How's that going to save fuel????? 14. I would also begin production of "mini-refineries" for gasoline in 25 of the 50 states immediately: Who's going to pay for this???? 15. Every American citizen that is currently working shall be given their birthday off with pay, paid for by the Feds: Yeah! I have a birthday everyday!!!!

  3. Top Three Things by Mr.Intel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) Straighten out the economy. Oil prices, housing slump, and the mess that is the Federal Banking Commission. 2) Scale back the size of the Federal Government and lower taxes accordingly. 3) Get a kick-ass foreign relations team into the embassies and capitals to repair our good name.

    --
    ASCII tastes bad dude.
    Binary it is then.
    1. Re:Top Three Things by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 3, Funny

      0) get in a time machine because you have to be at least 35 years old to be president.

      --
      stuff |
    2. Re:Top Three Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, because the last guy who tried to work things out with the gas prices didn't put us in a complete tail spin.

      i'm thankful that you have no chance of being president since you obviously know little about history.

    3. Re:Top Three Things by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Well, there are precendents of presidents who do not know any history (or geography, or...)

    4. Re:Top Three Things by teasea · · Score: 1

      These are the things I would attempt. I would likely not succeed as few would contribute money to me to get them done (barring a true grass roots effort.)

      Scale back the troops in Iraq. Leave a highly mobile force to deal with true hotspots and aid when specifically asked to by the foreign government in question. These troops need not even be stationed in Iraq. We never should have invaded Iraq and there is no good solution as to how we should exit.

      Remove subsidies for corporations to build in a specific area. Building or expansion subsidies allow companies to not only take no risk, but to profit (outright grants of tax dollars) regardless of how bad a decision it is to build in an area.

      Repeal laws which restrict the rights of individuals and/or which serve to create criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

    5. Re:Top Three Things by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      Messing with oil prices is a major part of the problem that the economy faces right now.
      Messing with oil prices is a major part of the problem that US foreign policy faces right now.
      Messing with oil prices is a major part of the problem that the environment faces right now.

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    6. Re:Top Three Things by Rei · · Score: 1, Informative

      And your proposals for doing these things are?

      Oil prices: Like most commodities, oil prices are largely driven by the laws of supply and demand. Unlike yesteryear when OPEC pretty much could determine supply at a whim, supply is so tight today that the power of OPEC has been greatly diminished (although their profits are greatly expanded). The US has some, but rather minimal, untapped pockets of oil, such as ANWR left. Any new tapping of oil resources won't take effect for years anyways. Another part is wars and occupations, both ongoing (Iraq) and potential (say, Iran). Also, random instabilitity and strikes can play havok with the markets (Nigeria, Colombia). On the demand side of the equation, you have China's quick but steady growth. Part of the present high prices are because the US is currently filling its strategic reserves.

      So, what's your plan?

      Housing slump: How do you think the Federal Government should raise home prices, many of whose values were greatly overinflated previously due to speculation?

      Federal Banking Commission: What do you propose?

      Scale back the size of the Federal Government and lower taxes accordingly: Here's a breakdown of the current budget for you:

      Social Security: 582B (Mandatory)
      Defense: 429.6B
      Medicare: 367B (Mandatory)
      Other Mandatory: 318B (a whole bunch of tiny, popular things. A few punching bags are in this category, such as TANF/Food stamps, but they're only ~7B and ~12B, respectively, so not much left to cut there.)
      Interest on debt: 239B (Mandatory)
      Medicaid/SCHIP: 198B (Mandatory)
      "Global War on Terror": 70.0B (emergency supplemental)
      Health and Human Services: 69.1B
      Education: 56.0B
      Housing and Urban Development: 34.7B
      Veterans Affairs: 33.2B
      Homeland Security: 32.0B
      State and other Intl. Programs: 28.7B
      Energy: 22.8B (includes nuclear weapons)
      Agriculture: 19.6B
      Justice: 19.4B
      NASA: 16.2B
      Labor: 11.7B
      Treasury: 11.4B
      Transportation: 10.7B
      Interior: 10.3B
      Social Security Adminstration: 7.6B
      EPA: 7.5B
      Other Agencies: 6.5B
      Commerce: 5.6B
      National Science Foundation: 5.6B
      Judicial Branch: 5.3B
      Corps of Engineers: 4.7B
      Legislative Branch: 3.7B
      Border Security and Other Suppl.: 1.8B (emergency supplemental)
      Small Business Administration: 0.4B
      Executive Office: 0.3B
      Hurricane response: 0.2B (emergency supplemental)

      Now, remember that we're operating in a defecit, and also remember that certain cuts (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) will essentially eliminate your chance at reelection (as well as your chances of actually getting them through even your own party, who cares about their reelection as well). Also remember that Social Security is also an income line item -- $873.4B currently (more in than out). All Mandatories are harder to get changed because they require a special bill; discretionary has to be reauthorized each year.

      Have at it.

      Get a kick-ass foreign relations team into the embassies and capitals to repair our good name.

      And that would be different from the goals of every other president how?

      --
      Tonight's Special: Leg of Salmon
    7. Re:Top Three Things by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      By the time of the elections, I will have satisfied the age requirement. I already satisfy the natural born citizen requirement. Now I just need millions of dollars and a quarter of a million people to vote for me.

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    8. Re:Top Three Things by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to formulate a tick for tick plan to implement anything right now. Number one, I'm not ever going to be elected to any office, let alone POTUS. Second, POTUS doesn't have to work out the details, that's what the Cabinet, exploratory committees, oh... and the U.S. Congress are for. POTUS just needs a policy platform grounded in reality. Everything else is pure influence and politics.

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    9. Re:Top Three Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "2) Scale back the size of the Federal Government and lower taxes accordingly. "

      I wonder how we would pay for the war with lower taxes? Take it out of the Defense budget or just keep printing money?

    10. Re:Top Three Things by paanta · · Score: 1

      1) Straighten out the economy. Oil prices, housing slump, and the mess that is the Federal Banking Commission. 2) Scale back the size of the Federal Government and lower taxes accordingly. 3) Get a kick-ass foreign relations team into the embassies and capitals to repair our good name.

      You forgot step 0) Find magic lamp.

    11. Re:Top Three Things by Firehed · · Score: 1

      4) IQ test the entire country. People who fail are pushed off the nearest bridge. People who get below a point determined to be reasonably intelligent (100 is average, not smart) get sent to Texas, which is to be denounced as a state.

      I think from there, the problems should solve themselves.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    12. Re:Top Three Things by Rei · · Score: 1

      Person A: "If I were president, I'd give everyone in the US a magic carpet."

      Person B: "Magic carpets don't exist. How do you propose to make them exist?"

      Person A: "I'm not going to formulate a tick for tick plan to create magic carpets right now."

      It's one thing to say you want something to happen. It's entirely different to have a realistic view on how it could be done. Not everything is possible. Not everything that is possible has an acceptable tradeoff in consequences associated with it.

      --
      Tonight's Special: Leg of Salmon
    13. Re:Top Three Things by nasor · · Score: 1

      3) Get a kick-ass foreign relations team into the embassies and capitals to repair our good name. I've always thought it odd/sad that the job of maintaining our relationships with foreign countries - arguably one of the most important things that the Federal Government does - is so often given away to people with no qualification simply because they are a friend of the President/party that happens to be in power. Ambassadorships are given away as a thank you token to people who the executive branch wants to reward. One would think that it would make a lot more sense to carefully select people with diplomatic training and a thorough understanding of the country/culture in which they are supposed to represent us, rather than simply selecting a party hack who's due for an official pat on the back.
    14. Re:Top Three Things by cHiphead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please note that I would only cut the budget on Nasa for the first 2 years, then I would ramp it up past 100B, if we don't get our asses in space and start strip mining other planetoids and asteroids, we're ALL in bigger trouble than deficit spending. In reality, a good chunk of the defense budget would go to NASA as well.

      Social Security: 600B (Mandatory)
      Defense: 250B
      Universal Health Care as part of Health and Human Services : 700B (Mandatory)
      Other Mandatory: 350B (a whole bunch of tiny, popular things. A few punching bags are in this category, such as TANF/Food stamps, but they're only ~7B and ~12B, respectively, so not much left to cut there.)
      Interest on debt: 239B (Mandatory)
      Medicaid/SCHIP: 0B (Mandatory) (see Universal Health Care)
      "Global War on Terror": 0B (emergency supplemental)
      Education: 100B
      Housing and Urban Development: 30B
      Veterans Affairs: 30B
      Homeland Security: 0B (this is bullshit, covered under Defense spending)
      State and other Intl. Programs: 15B
      Energy: 100B (includes nuclear weapons)
      Agriculture: 20B
      Justice: 20B
      NASA: 15B (primary budget is covered under Defense for first 2 years)
      Labor: 10B
      Treasury: 5B
      Transportation: 15B
      Interior: 10B
      Social Security Adminstration: 5B
      EPA: 5B
      Other Agencies: 5B
      Commerce: 5B
      National Science Foundation: 5B
      Judicial Branch: 5B
      Corps of Engineers: 5B
      Legislative Branch: 2B
      Border Security and Other Suppl.: 0B (once again, bullshit, covered under defense spending)
      Small Business Administration: 0.4B
      Executive Office: 0.1B
      Hurricane response: 0B (emergency supplemental, covered under Health and Human Services)

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    15. Re:Top Three Things by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      1) The thing is, the president can't do #1. Don't you think any President, even Bush, would wave a magic wand if they could?

      What he can do is do things that promote that. Even then it might not happen (FDRs domestic program didn't really work that well until the economy ramped up for WW2).

      2) Agree.

      3) This needs more than PR. Pulling out of Iraq would be a concrete step.

    16. Re:Top Three Things by JWW · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular belief. There are other intelligent people (geniuses even!) in every political party. No party is made up completely of only stupid OR only smart people.

    17. Re:Top Three Things by Rei · · Score: 1

      If we ever end up with instant runoff voting or similar, you're going on my list :)

      --
      Tonight's Special: Leg of Salmon
    18. Re:Top Three Things by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

      (1)Make it so the children of illegal aliens born here are not automatically citizens. (2)Make English the official language and make official government business in it only (3)Require all government computer business be done with FOSS.

      --
      Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
    19. Re:Top Three Things by corbettw · · Score: 1

      1) Straighten out the economy. Oil prices, housing slump, and the mess that is the Federal Banking Commission. And how, exactly, would you do that? What specific steps would you take to lower oil prices and solve the mess with housing? What would you change about the banking commission?
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    20. Re:Top Three Things by corbettw · · Score: 1

      People who get below a point determined to be reasonably intelligent (100 is average, not smart) get sent to Texas, which is to be denounced as a state. Speaking as a Texan (I wasn't born here, but I got here as quick as I could), I say: please, yes, send tens of millions of morons down here. They'll make great cannon fodder when we invade you Yankies and take all your land. ;)
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    21. Re:Top Three Things by Surt · · Score: 1

      Well, i'd take out half of defense, and 10% off Social security, even if that meant I don't get reelected, because honestly, it would be hard to do much better for the long term good of the country. Universal healthcare done right could knock medicaid/schip down to 400 b or less. No more global war on terror saves 70b. Cutting down other mandator, it looks like we could reach for about 450b of spending reduction fairly easily.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    22. Re:Top Three Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How can a smaller federal govt. with lower tax revenue influence oil or housing prices? Answer, it can't. People need to accept the fact that they paid too much for their houses and move on. No one bails out bad investors in the stock market. Unless you plan to subsidize oil or ration it, both meaning bigger govt. and huge a economic impact, there's nothing you can do about the price of oil. The purpose of govt should not be to regulate the economy.

    23. Re:Top Three Things by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      Here's my plan:

      1) Drastically cut defense, by at least half. Bring the troops home, and I don't mean just in Iraq. Defense should be about preventing an invasion of this country, which we are failing to do. Station defense forces on Mexican border. Continue funding defense research, especially the type that enables us to do more with less, like UAV's and the F22.

      2) Complete federal-government wide hiring freeze. Let people retire, then shift jobs around, eliminating unnecessary ones. I've worked for a three letter agency, you could easily eliminate about 40% of the people with no loss in functionality.

      3) Homeland security is gone. Same with HUD, Department of Education, Agriculture, National Science Foundation.

      4) Merge the entire Intelligence community under the CIA.

      5) Eliminate the income tax. Replace with Fair Tax, with a plan to decrease that tax annually until all federal expenses are paid via inflationary measures only. Write an amendment that the total annual federal budget can not exceed 5% of GDP except in time of war, with war being defined as actions taken to counter aggressive foreign occupation of a U.S. state.

      7) Allow anyone who wants to opt out of Social Security. This means they don't pay into it, and can never receive benefits.

      8) Repeal the prescription drug plan.

      9) Veto everything until both a line item veto amendment and a balanced budget amendment are passed.

      And that's about it. I think that these things are almost necessary for the country to survive another 100 years without an economic collapse.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    24. Re:Top Three Things by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      Energy: 100B (includes nuclear weapons)

        Respectfully, but no. Weapons should fall under the defense budget. But add another 50B or so to Energy for nuclear power plants.

        We *do* need to maintain at least a small arsenal (perhaps a few hundred nuclear weapons including tactical ones) for defense; or, should I say, potential retaliation capabilities. This could be increased or decreased as time goes by depending on the situation. But that should properly fall under military jurisdiction - I thnk our military has demonstrated that it's responsible enough to handle them. Of course that may change, but we would have to deal with that possibility if and when it arose.

      tic

    25. Re:Top Three Things by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There is no reason for the government at any level to be spending money on power plants of any sort. This is for private businesses. The most government should be doing is removing restrictions on building power plants and making it much more difficult to file lawsuits against power plant construction.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    26. Re:Top Three Things by chgros · · Score: 1

      I would:
      1) End world hunger
      2) Create world peace
      3) Get a pony

    27. Re:Top Three Things by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        Oh, I agree. I don't know if you remember watching the news hysteria over 3MI, but I do.

        tic

    28. Re:Top Three Things by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        Yeah, there is.

        But in today's US, money trumps sense. So it goes.

      tic

    29. Re:Top Three Things by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      700B is going to make for some really crappy healthcare.

      Good healthcare right now is on average about $300 a month x 12 months that $3600 a year x 300M people thats just over $1T. Your going to want to double that for government inefficiency so your going to need to come up with $2,000,000,000,000.

      Where else are you going to cut?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    30. Re:Top Three Things by richardkelleher · · Score: 1

      Back in the old days, we could just get a fake ID.

    31. Re:Top Three Things by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1
      I was good until the line item veto thing. This can't be in place as it shifts too much power to the president when this can be fixed by pushing the responsibility to the congressman by making a line item vote. Hey look just an anagram!! Anyway, if all congressman had to vote on each line with either Required, Accepted or Rejected. Each having the meaning

      1. Required - this stays in or all my votes change to Rejected.
      2. Accepted - This can stay or can be removed from final bill.
      3. Rejected - This item is unacceptable and must be modified or removed.


      This way we know exactly what senators are voting for and can hold their feet to the fire come election time.
      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    32. Re:Top Three Things by Profound · · Score: 1

      Straighten out the economy. Oil prices, housing slump

      Oil prices - I assume this is so that Americans can keep consuming the amount of oil they currently do? Hey, you're using 25% of the world's oil with 5% of the people - you should be using less. Get used to it, the purchasing power of Americans is going down the toilet with your dollar, and so it should.

      Abandon the countries in the middle east you have occupied, learn to live with less.

      The prices of houses were bid up too high, they need to come down. The prices are phony but the debt is real, let them come down so that people don't have to promise as much of their life for their shelter. That is a good thing.

    33. Re:Top Three Things by Profound · · Score: 1

      We can all sit around a fire, sing songs and eat pony.

    34. Re:Top Three Things by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      You are correct, I just copied and pasted that from the original post, meant to remove the 'nuclear weapons' or at least clarify that that part is defense spending. The money in the energy budget is for tidal generators and implementing solar panels country wide on homes, businesses, and electric poles.

      cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    35. Re:Top Three Things by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      Good healthcare right now is a fucking ripoff, someone needs to punish the healthcare system and kick its ass back in line, no more Glaxxosmithkline making billions off fake drugs that cause more problems than they fix at the expense of health care premiums. No more health care premiums. Doctors don't get to buy quite as many Porche and Mercedes cars and suvs from the returns they got on investments in companies whose drugs they recommend to patients (INSANITY. Breach of ethics. Violation of Hippocratic oath. The whole nine yards on that one.)

      700B is more than enough to create a functional healthcare system with reliable service.

      A hospital is a public support structure and should be treated as such, not as a private corporation that has the top most motivating factor as profit for its shareholders.

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    36. Re:Top Three Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dissolve the CIA. 50+ years of screwed up foreign policy is no way to run a country.

    37. Re:Top Three Things by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      I thought maybe it was sarcasm but I realize you are serious after checking your profile.

      Please, get the fuck off the internet.

      If you are not a pro-business lobbyist, you really need to approach some of the fronting 'institutes' and 'think tanks' and start getting paid for this bullshit.

      The United States Government is an extension of the citizens, created for the sake of the public welfare. The public welfare relies on ENERGY. The energy system is already privatized, yet it gets unbelievable amounts of GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY. Aka, Welfare. Business welfare is the real problem with this country, not individual/family welfare. We throw billions down the tube in the form of business subsidy and get jack shit for return, the private companies (and its not just the energy sector) happily take this money and use it to further their own profit margins. Verizon, Bellsouth, SBC/AT&T, etc etc, all take huge sums from the government for the purpose of maintaining the 'utility' of phone and communications over copper wire, Verizon is funnelling its own 'share' of maintenance money (the part Verizon is required to put up for being allowed to profit on the public rights of way) and running fiber optics which are not considered part of the existing infrastructure, therefore they have more freedom to determine prices. Its absolutely insane that you pay a private corporation money for research, maintenance, and bailouts (when needed) for public services that could be run by public servants at cost instead of for profit. When energy becomes part of the expected government services paid for by taxes, the economy, especially private business economics, becomes much stronger by focusing efforts on other things than maintenance and power generation.

      Until power plants and power lines are run and maintained by the government, they can go fuck themselves and get sued. Nobody is going to profit while polluting in my backyard.

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    38. Re:Top Three Things by Ktulu_03 · · Score: 1

      Good healthcare right now is a fucking ripoff, someone needs to punish the healthcare system and kick its ass back in line, no more Glaxxosmithkline making billions off fake drugs that cause more problems than they fix at the expense of health care premiums. No more health care premiums. Doctors don't get to buy quite as many Porche and Mercedes cars and suvs from the returns they got on investments in companies whose drugs they recommend to patients (INSANITY. Breach of ethics. Violation of Hippocratic oath. The whole nine yards on that one.)

      And don't forget about getting rid of the scumbag lawyers who are driving up costs of healthcare as well..

    39. Re:Top Three Things by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      This way we know exactly what senators are voting for and can hold their feet to the fire come election time.
      br Well it might end those smear ads like "Congressmen Jones voted *AGAINST* a bill to feed starving children in America." When really that was a rider on a bill that would dump billions into misc. pork projects.

    40. Re:Top Three Things by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      The economy needs only basic watch care -- anything more will act as a magnifier, not a mitigator of economic forces. Bush's policy has been to play dumb and drive down the value of the dollar. So far, this has created a larger trade deficit, increased foreign investment and grown foreign economies relative to the U.S. economy. As President, I would reverse this through balancing the budget, decreasing taxes, and setting caps on imports. All three are tough on the short term, but I'd rather wade through some lean years and take the brunt of the blame then pass the buck to the next guy. Economies are not short term systems.

      Oil prices can be reduced by weaning the country off it's dependency. There will always been a need for oil, regardless of where we get our energy from (plastics, pesticides, etc.) What we need to do is remove the dependency on foreign oil. We have the technology, just not the will to move away from oil-fueled cars and power plants. As President, I would unflinchingly take the auto industry to task for keeping alternative-fuel vehicles from coming to market. I would employ the full powers of my office to wreck their industry until they provided the means to get our country driving clean, oil-free vehicles.

      The Federal Reserve Bank needs to have its charter revoked and a fully governmental system should be put in its place. As Rep. Lindberg Sr. said of the bill that made the current system law: "The People are the Government. Therefore the Government should, as the Constitution provides, regulate the value of money."

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    41. Re:Top Three Things by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      I agree with all of your points, however you are missing mine.

      The government should not regulate the economy, but it has a responsibility to the people for regulating currency, insuring banks, and setting national agendas. One of those agendas should be how we quickly move away from foreign oil. This *can* be done through the office of president and it can be done in four years.

      The housing market is what it is. I don't propose that we try to close the barn door on that escaped horse, but I do propose that we examine the circumstances that brought it about and see if current government involvement contributed to it.

      Smaller Federal Government costs less, requiring less taxes, increasing money in the hands of the citizens. That helps increase spending in the local economy, increasing jobs and increasing salaries.

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    42. Re:Top Three Things by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, the 'litigation' that is supposedly driving up insurance premiums on the doctors side, and as a result increasing individual health care premiums, is a red herring from the health care companies so you focus on that and not their mismanagement of funds.

      Be wary of the bullshit the republican party, insurance companies, and their doctors, feed you through the news cycle and various organizations. Theres more to it.

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    43. Re:Top Three Things by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      Nope. Completely missed the point.

      Oil prices are a function of demand. We have plenty of domestic stock for our plastics/pesticides industry. We should instead, convert to an oil-free energy policy. This is doable, and it's doable in four years.

      My plan is to reverse Bush's policy of a declining dollar, so our purchasing power will rebound and level out.

      I never mentioned housing prices in my original post, but to be fair, I wouldn't touch that one. People made bad choices and they are living with it. Why should the government run to their rescue?

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    44. Re:Top Three Things by Profound · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. In 4 years you expect all of America to wean itself off oil?

      People have bought cars with huge internal combustion engines with loans twice that size!

      Face it, Americans love driving their cars to malls more than they love not invading other countries.

    45. Re:Top Three Things by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      Which is why it'll take a President with guts to make it happen. Which is why it won't happen. Now do you see my point?

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    46. Re:Top Three Things by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Now I just need millions of dollars and a quarter of a million people to vote for me.

      I'm not sure about the millions of dollars, but if you are geek enough...wait, how many slashdot accounts are there?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  4. Ya know I thought about it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    And there's a quote from Office Space rattling around my head as to what I'd do. I'm going to take the high road and not post it but that's what coming to mind.

    1. Re:Ya know I thought about it ... by cashman73 · · Score: 1
      And there's a quote from Office Space rattling around my head as to what I'd do. I'm going to take the high road and not post it but that's what coming to mind.

      Sorry, but I think President Clinton already beat you to it,... :-P

  5. Since you asked... by Crash+McBang · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... any time I was in doubt as to what to do, President McBang would post the question to Slashdot and use the top-moderated answer for guidance.

    Oh, and I'd ask Cmdr Taco what he thought as well.

    --
    To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
    1. Re:Since you asked... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      And I forgot to mention one of the many other problems with the current health-care system. It actually impedes worker re-education. I say this because of course health care is usually tied in to employment. Likewise, most educational institutions in this country require students to have health care in order to attend as a student. Therefore, if a worker loses their job, and hence their health care, it becomes difficult for them to go back to school, where of course they need the health care that they no longer have.

      I do realize that of course some schools have plans available for students to buy in to, but there are many others that do not. They of course get away with this because of the old assumption that students will enter post-secondary education immediately after completing high school (and hence still be covered by mom & dad's insurance). Unfortunately, this is not the case with all the workers in this country that need to improve on their education.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Since you asked... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... any time I was in doubt as to what to do, President McBang would post the question to Slashdot and use the top-moderated answer for guidance.

      I'm pretty sure 'Cowboy Neal' won't be the answer to any of the problems facing this country. Or at least, not many of them.

    3. Re:Since you asked... by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      ... any time I was in doubt as to what to do, President McBang would post the question to Slashdot and use the top-moderated answer for guidance.

        Somehow I doubt you'd do any worse than what we have now. Scary, ain't it? ;)

      tic

    4. Re:Since you asked... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      True. I hear that the answer to border control is "Chuck Norris".

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    5. Re:Since you asked... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      True. I hear that the answer to border control is "Chuck Norris".

      Mr Norris, *TEAR DOWN THIS WALL*!

  6. Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on Sun by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I was president,
    I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
    and buried on Sunday.

    If I was president...
    If I was president

    An old man told me, instead of spending billions on the war,
    we can use some of that money, in the ghetto.
    I know some so poor, they use the spring as the shower,
    when screaming "fight the power".
    That's when the vulture devoured

    [chorus]
    If I was president,
    I'd get elected on Friday, assasinated on Saturday,
    and buried on Sunday.

    If I was president...
    If I was president...
    If I was president...
    If I was president

    But the radio won't play this.
    They call this rebel music.
    How can you refuse it, children of moses?

    [chorus]
    If I was president,
    I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
    and buried on Sunday.

    If I was president...
    If i was president

    Tell the children the truth, the truth.
    Christopher Columbus didn't discover America.
    Tell them the truth.
    The truth
    YEAH! Tell them about Marcus Garvey.
    The truth YEAH! The truth.
    Tell them about Martin Luther King.
    Tell them the truth.
    The Truth.
    Tell them about JFK

    If I was President
    [chorus]
    If I was president,
    I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
    and buried on Sunday.

    If I was president...
    If I was president

  7. VETO! by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Veto everything. With exceptions for bills that repeal earlier laws.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    1. Re:VETO! by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Then I'd pardon everyone in jail for simple possession.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:VETO! by xstonedogx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also agreed. Then I'd severely cripple or remove unrepresentative 'rule-making' bodies under the authority of the executive.

    3. Re:VETO! by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You are aware this would mean that the U.S. government would completely collapse within a year, as you vetoed every budget, right? I'm sure you're also aware that the collapses U.S. government would promptly send the U.S. into an economic collapse, as the dollar became almost completely worthless and people began to starve and riot?

      Don't worry, I suspect you wouldn't have long to worry about it anyway, before your impeachment.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:VETO! by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      You are aware exercising constitutionally granted authority is NOT grounds for impeachment, right?

      Besides, if it's important enough, they'll put together a budget that 2/3 of Congress can agree and then a veto doesn't matter.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    5. Re:VETO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah let the guys out who were simply holding nukes, they weren't hurting anyone :P

      Just fucking with ya

    6. Re:VETO! by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Then I'd pardon everyone in jail for simple possession. If you had to personally sign each one then you would have a very sore wrist by the time you were done, if indeed you even could finish before your term ran out.
    7. Re:VETO! by nasor · · Score: 3, Informative

      The president can only pardon people who have been convicted of violating federal laws. Since most people in prision for drug posession were charged under state drug laws, there wouldn't be anything you could do about it.

    8. Re:VETO! by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      The typical /.'er will not have this problem after years of...practice.

    9. Re:VETO! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      On paper, that's true. In practice, Congress can impeach for whatever they damn well choose.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:VETO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you didn't know already, Ron Paul wants to pardon most nonviolent drug offenders.

    11. Re:VETO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In practice, they hardly ever do it at all. And then very reluctantly and ass-coveringly. You have to lie under oath (Clinton) or maybe just lie (Nixon (well, they were going to impeach)).

    12. Re:VETO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starve? The economy would still be there. Resources would still exist, people would still be able to produce. They'd just want real money instead of dollars. I suspect a US government collapse would help the economy more than it hurt (in the short/medium term). Until the commies starting nuking our cities; then the economy would be pretty bad. So yeah, we need some US government.

    13. Re:VETO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extend that to all "victimless crimes", and you have my vote, sir.

    14. Re:VETO! by corbettw · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't worry, I suspect you wouldn't have long to worry about it anyway, before your impeachment. You misspelled "assassination", just so you know.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    15. Re:VETO! by geschild · · Score: 5, Interesting
      disclaimer: I'm European, haven't been to the US and given the circumstances will not travel there for the forseeable future.

      "Agreed. Then I'd pardon everyone in jail for simple possession." Why not go several steps further and end the war on drugs altogether? Change it to a commercial model where distribution is legalized and FDA controlled. Everyone who wants to buy/use has to follow a course much like drivers-ed and get a license to use, perhaps even per-substance and perhaps with a practical exam (using under supervision) to make sure there are no adverse reactions? The 'license' would hold biometric data, only to make sure it's the original holder that is buying and you could put quota on it.

      Such a system would yield major advantages for everyone:
      - Educate users. I'm a firm believer in education as a way to reduce harm and raise awareness.
      - take away income from criminals and put it into the taxable real economy.
      - use said income to mitigate medical and social consequences of (a)buse
      - get rid of a lot of 'criminals' (small time dealers are usually opportunity criminals. no opportunity, no criminals.)
      - not throwing away a lot of human potential over petty crime like posession or use
      - police would have a lot of capacity to battle drugsrelated crime like theft, robbery, DUI, etc. as well as check the fringes like reselling to people without a license (meaning you get a fine and forfeit your license to buy)

      After everyone has come to terms with that, perhaps you can put alcohol and tobacco in the same system as they are (hard)drugs themselves.

      Will this end all problems? No. There will always be people trying to abuse the system for higher gain. There will always be addicts and their related problems. Issues with home-producers (meth labs, etc., not home growers of pot.) Lots more that I'm too tired to think of right now.

      Anyway, 'The State' is harming users that get caught a lot more than most drugs will ever do. End that and you've done at least one good thing as a president.

      more disclaimers: I don't see marihuana as 'completely innocent', I think all recreational psychoactive substances should only be available to people over the age of 18. Taxes should be imposed in relation to the cost to society.
      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    16. Re:VETO! by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        Plus, anyone who tries to introduce non-relevant bill provisions is permanently barred from running for office at any level including president of the local chapter of alcoholics anonymous :)

      tic

    17. Re:VETO! by tic!lock · · Score: 2, Informative

      Completely dismantle the DEA and return control of drug laws to local jurisdictions, with the overall understanding that no rights of due process shall be violated, and that no unjust or draconian penalties shall be set. One way to begin that perhaps would be to tell the states that yes, you can set your own drug laws, but you have to first offer any offenders, especially first time offenders, the option of medical treatment at the states expense if they so wish. Just to balance that, mandatory treatment/jail time for any drug offender who injures or kills other people while under the influence.

        And completely decriminalize marijuana/hemp. Leave it to the states whether or not they wish to regulate the sales of the intoxicating form of it, but make it clear that no law shall be passed that will make the sale or use of cannabis for medical purposes illegal, and also that any attempt by anyone to monopolize sales or produce tainted product will not go unpunished. This bullshit has gone on for entirely too many generations and it's time that it was stopped. We regulate alcohol sales (with varying success) and cannabis has been medically shown to be less destructive than alcohol.

        There's lots more that needs to be done there and what I said above isn't the best by any means... but drug abuse should be a medical problem, not a legislative one. The only thing that legislation has done has been to create artificial black markets that have done tremendous damage to our country and this is not acceptable.

      tic (a NORML member since 1988)

    18. Re:VETO! by LoztInSpace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is very similar to my own views. However I had not considered a 'test'. I am not convinced it is necessary but could be worth considering for some of the harder/more addictive/psycoactive types.
      I'd also argue that rather than freeing up police to "battle drugs related crime" that type of crime would reduce significantly. Although I can't prove it, I believe that most theft/robbery that is drugs related is due to the exhorbitant prices commanded by the illegal market. A federally regulated system would (should) reduce the cost to something more reasonable. This stuff typically costs nothing to grow & produce. The cost comes from rewarding the risk of those people willing to get it into the country and onto the market.

    19. Re:VETO! by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The president can only pardon people who have been convicted of violating federal laws. Since most people in prision for drug posession were charged under state drug laws, there wouldn't be anything you could do about it. You can: Cut their federal-monies by 2x the internment costs of each of these victims of the system.
      Also, bomb them.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    20. Re:VETO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't you just script it?

      You know, have a base signature, but randomly mutate it for each signature (because no two signatures are ever identical!) that you need to generate.

      After all, only old people in Korea sign by hand.

    21. Re:VETO! by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      You are aware this would mean that the U.S. government would completely collapse within a year, as you vetoed every budget, right?

        Since it's going to happen sooner or later, isn't sooner better? And wouldn't it be better if it happened for a good reason?

      tic (who has quit wondering after many years whether he's nuts, because he's just plain not in the running anymore)

    22. Re:VETO! by samantha · · Score: 1

      Hint. The dollar is worth less every single year. It is worth 36% less against a basket of other worthless paper since Bush took office. The government, not just Bush administration takes over 50% of the wealth, at least that much of the land, and yet manages to run $9.2 trillion in debt ($35 trillion plus is you use normal business accounting), get in the way of scientific and technological progress, lock up more people per capita than any nation in 200 years, turn the once most literate country on earth to 30% illiterate and throw away most of the good will toward America around the world. And it eats more of our substance and enslaves us more and more directly every single year. I can think of a lot worse things than seeing it collapse. Maybe people will come out of their long coma and build something better on the ashes. Yeah, it will be painful. But we are in a lot of pain now and it is set to get a whole lot worse.

    23. Re:VETO! by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Hint. The dollar is worth less every single year. It is worth 36% less against a basket of other worthless paper since Bush took office.

      If you think US dollars are "worthless paper", may I have yours?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    24. Re:VETO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morally, there is no difference between posession, manufacture, or distribution. All are merely crimes against the state -- the institution of power and their arbitrary rules -- not against an actual, living individual.

      As an individual who thinks for himself, I find it appalling that so many others can't admit that voluntary association is always moral and just -- including the act of producting, distributing, or using drugs -- no matter what the power elite who control government say.

  8. Two main concerns by egarff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First: Honestly, I would do my best to remove our military presence from Iraq (and yes, I know this would probably lead to civil war, but I think its going to happen anyway, just delayed while we're there). Second: I would see if I could get the ball rolling on government insurance (socialist medicine), our privatized insurance system has become the bane of the under and uninsured people in the country, particularly children in those 2 categories.

    1. Re:Two main concerns by nrich239 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm with you on both points. I work in the "healthcare" (bunch of crap) industry. Our company makes a profit from developing software to help find ways to deny more claims to make more money for our clients. Even people that are properly insured get screwed over by most insurance companies.

    2. Re:Two main concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even people that are properly insured get screwed over by most insurance companies.

      I realize this is purely anecdotal, but I've personally only once had a claim denied, and no member of my close family has had any denial. I've had one surgery, and my wife is currently pregnant, and we've had no problems at all. I've had several family members recently spend time in the hospital as well, and again claims have all gone through. Am I (and those around me) just especially lucky?

      The one claim I did have denied, I appealed, and won the appeal -- the insurance company paid.

    3. Re:Two main concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      O my god won't someone please think of the children. We must pass echo $insert_bad_legislation; immediately.

    4. Re:Two main concerns by Zerth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Knowing a people on either end of the insurance billing industry, I've heard some horror stories. One family member worked at a hospital that went under because they couldn't process insurance forms fast enough. Not because the hospital didn't have enough people, but because the insurance companies turn around was so unreliable. They were lucky to get 70% of their paperwork back. They had a party any month where 90% cleared.

      My dentist sends all his paperwork registered mail after headhunting a claim processor from the biggest PITA he dealt with and finding out that the particular company had a "clean desk" policy: any envelope not opened by the end of her shift got trashed unless it was sent registered mail.

    5. Re:Two main concerns by Tom · · Score: 1

      and yes, I know this would probably lead to civil war, but I think its going to happen anyway, just delayed while we're there "lead to"? Isn't the difference between whatever you call it now and a civil war that right now, if you are a civilian, you could get killed just for going to the market, and in a civil war you could get killed just for going to the market?

      Really, I don't think there's much difference, except that the body count right now is distributed over a longer stretch of time.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:Two main concerns by Tokah · · Score: 1

      And health insurance companies, due to how they respond to claims, end up adding "medical markup" to the simplest of medical procedures and equipment. Add a little wheelchair symbol to a standard size of grey bike wheel, multiply the price by four!

    7. Re:Two main concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would see if I could get the ball rolling on government insurance (socialist medicine), our privatized insurance system has become the bane of the under and uninsured people in the country, particularly children in those 2 categories.

      Universal Health Care is the wrong solution to the right problem. The problem of health care isn't who's paying for it (private vs public) it's how damn much it costs. Having taxes pay for everyone healths insurance is a sure fire way to put America in the poor house. So far, America's economy has continued to move people out of lower class into middle class incomes. Putting such a burden on everyone with health insurance taxes will take so much money way from everyone that we'll see more people move from middle class to lower class, because they'll loose even more spending power.

      What Gov. needs to do is work on creating better competition in the health care industry. Already the market is developing solutions to these costs with what's known as "fast clinics" (terms will vary). Basically, a fast clinic is a clinic staffed by registered nurses and physician assistants. They will treat anyone over 6 years of age with your average medical needs such as Flu, common cold, physicals, allergies, routine checkups, etc. You know, the stuff you typically go the hospital for. They're not going to do major medical stuff like broken bones or surgeries and if they're going to send you to a fully staffed hospital if they feel your symptoms will need more specific care. All this while not waiting more than 15mins and paying usually $40 (before insurances) and that includes lab work. Again, you're not going to get X-rays or things like that, just your minor medical treatments.

      These "fast clinics" have been in test markets in various retail stores such as Wal-Greens, etc. If you ask me, instead of Universal Health Care that will kill the economy, the Gov. should put incentives on businesses for offering medical coverage of this type to all employees. For such a low cost, and some tax breaks, Wal-Mart and other big retailers can give medical coverage to all it's employees, full-time, part-time, etc. This doesn't cover major medical, but major medical insurance can be covered by a high deductible policy.

      I think the right step is to start getting medical costs down by driving demand for low cost solutions that the market is already providing. By driving down the price of health care, insurance costs will also be forced down, making health insurance more affordable for everyone. Then Gov. can continue to fund already available programs for those who do no qualify for any of the above options (homeless, unemployed, etc).

      That's what I think we should do about Health Care. And I say this having worked for a branch of the Gov. and KNOWING how much they'll spend on consultants that produce nothing for them and give little to no benefit in services. We're talking paying a consultant $50,000 to look at their computer systems and say "you should get a server". The government is well know for throwing money away. The last thing that any intelligent American should want is to let Big Health Care get it's claws into the government, where they'll start charging even MORE for health services and making MORE profit on your health.

      You think corruption and scandal is bad now? Imagine what deals can be made to pad Big Health Care's pockets on the tax payers dime when lobbyist's can use Health Care?

    8. Re:Two main concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a tool for the left. What moron would abandon Iraq when success finally looks possible? Answer: someone with a political agenda rather than an honest desire to see the right thing done there. Note: your information is a year old since the left has shut up on Iraq since things started improving. I'm still waiting for moveon.org to apologize for the general betray us ad. He was right and they were wrong.

      As for socializing medicine, by what right do think you can force doctors to be govt employees subject to whatever slave wages they decide to pay them

    9. Re:Two main concerns by Rockenreno · · Score: 1

      Funny, my company makes a profit developing software that gives hospitals a better chance to collect on claims sent to insurance companies...

      --

      Forecast for tomorrow: A few sprinklings of genius with a chance of DOOM!
    10. Re:Two main concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If US is present in Iraq, civil war is controlled to some extent (at least US is in the scene attempting to control) and body count is stretched over a longer period of time. If US leaves Iraq after creating the mess (it is US' mess in a foreign country), there will be an uncontrolled civil war with indeterminate casualty. That then would become another argument that US would have to live with. Presidential candidates may have a different strategy to bring out peace in the country, but until there is reasonable confidence, it is unlikely (even democratic candidates) would pull troops out.

    11. Re:Two main concerns by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you really hate the poor and the sick so much that you want to inflict government medicine upon them?

      And to be precise, our insurance system is not "privatized", it is private. Privatization is the process of making a government orgnanization non-governmental. It is the reverse of "nationalization". The insurance industry has never been a government function.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Two main concerns by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      I know this would probably lead to civil war, but I think its going to happen anyway

      Oh, *phew*! I thought this was already happening! What a relief!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    13. Re:Two main concerns by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        There's an old saying, how ancient enemies come to resemble each other. ;)

      tic

    14. Re:Two main concerns by damsgaard · · Score: 1

      Why do they use dead tree mail? The 19th century mails you and want their technology back. Even here in the darkest part of Jutland (Denmark not Tatooine) the rural area doctor have begun accepting only email contact from their patients. This works rather fine in reducing their workload as the elderly don't have computers (and cellphone email is a little difficult).

    15. Re:Two main concerns by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you really hate the poor and the sick so much that you want to inflict government medicine upon them?
      What a stupid question. If government health care was going to make the poor worse off than they already are, don't you think Bush would have implemented it by now?

      No, conservatives aren't blocking universal health care out of love for the poor. They just don't want them clogging up the waiting rooms and making health care less convenient for them. We've already got rationed health care in this country; it's rationed by income.
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    16. Re:Two main concerns by egarff · · Score: 1

      Having taxes pay for everyone healths insurance is a sure fire way to put America in the poor house.

      Sure.... that's why the Canadian looney has a higher value than the US Dollar, and they have tax based insurance. Oh, I forgot about England too. That's such a poor economy

      Yes, if it was based on current costs for healthcare, it would hurt our economy, but as part of legislation, we'd have to make costs more reasonable, and I'm not talking about no one making a profit, but it's insane as it stands right now.

  9. legislate to hem in the power of the exec branch by stevetures · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First thing I would do would be to understand that most people are unhappy with the powers given to the president during these last eight years. I would immediately begin to ask congress for a new checks and balances constitutional amendment.

  10. It worked for Nixon! by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

    1. Record all my private discussions.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    --
    Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
  11. In all seriousness by earnest+murderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

    Understandably this will make a number of very large corporations unhappy. But knocking a couple zero's off a few dozen people's income doesn't bother me much.

    There's lots of other things I'd do, but this is the big one we've been refusing to make eye contact with for about 70 years.

    If the economy takes a dive, I'll maybe push for a large domestic project rather than invent a war. Maybe an interstate highway syste... aww damn... I'll come up with something good.

    Promise.

    --
    Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    1. Re:In all seriousness by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

      So you would pass the 'Let's All Become Muslim' Bill? Now, I think our foreign policy is a mess, and we have given ourselves a black eye with our military. But there is a sizable group of people that won't be happy until our men all have beards, and our women are wearing burkas.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:In all seriousness by PinkPanther · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But there is a sizable group of people that won't be happy until our men all have beards, and our women are wearing burkas.

      What a load of crap. Show me one statement/website/whatever where ANY pseudo-legitimate group has even suggested such a thing (other than home-grown groups)?

      You have completely misinterpreted what the rest of the world (not just the Islamic part) has been saying to the West. They want the West to quit meddling in their own affairs...they don't want to convert you...they don't even like you.

      ;-)

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    3. Re:In all seriousness by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

      So you would pass the 'Let's All Become Muslim' Bill? Now, I think our foreign policy is a mess, and we have given ourselves a black eye with our military. But there is a sizable group of people that won't be happy until our men all have beards, and our women are wearing burkas. Ahh the straw man, my least favorite logical fallacy and the most over used tool of contrarians everywhere. It's not even a good straw man, your emotion and confusion are completely transparent.

      I would answer your question except that I've learned over the years that pretty much anyone who opens up with a straw man isn't interested in truth, facts or solutions. They don't know what they talk about (otherwise they'd come up with a much better and relevant argument) and are more or less only interested in their own point of view (boring).
      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    4. Re:In all seriousness by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You win the MASTER FAIL. Please, don't breed. Ever. You are why the phrase "f***ing idiot' was invented.

    5. Re:In all seriousness by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >But there is a sizable group of people that won't be happy until our men all have beards, and our women are wearing burkas.

      While there are a tiny minority of people who think like this in the Muslim world, they would be considered the crazy people shouting at you on street corners if it weren't for the US occupying their holy lands. Do you really think there is any chance whatsoever that any Muslim country could defeat or overthrow the US? At worst they can piss us off real bad.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    6. Re:In all seriousness by Erioll · · Score: 1

      >But there is a sizable group of people that won't be happy until our men all have beards, and our women are wearing burkas.

      While there are a tiny minority of people who think like this in the Muslim world, they would be considered the crazy people shouting at you on street corners if it weren't for the US occupying their holy lands. Do you really think there is any chance whatsoever that any Muslim country could defeat or overthrow the US? At worst they can piss us off real bad. But that's the point, that you don't NEED very many of them for it to happen. You only need... about 19 of them to knock down some buildings actually.

      The point is that you can't make policy like that. There is NO policy that won't make somebody, somewhere want to come and cause violence. It's how large a threat they have the potential or have PROVEN themselves to be versus the resources needed to defend against them. And of course, try not to deliberately antagonize either when you don't have to, but regardless, I repeat that there is NO policy that won't piss somebody, somewhere, off enough to want to cause harm.
    7. Re:In all seriousness by ricegf · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you would pass the 'Let's All Become Muslim' Bill?
      Show me one statement/website/whatever where ANY pseudo-legitimate group has even suggested such a thing

      Not sure if you consider them "pseudo-legitimate", but you might try this BBC's report on a video statement made by Osama Bin Laden in September 2007:

      The speaker tells the American public that there are two ways to end the war in Iraq: "The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you."

      The second way, he continues, is to reject America's democratic system and convert to Islam.

      Sure sounds like he plans to keep knocking down buildings until we all embrace his religion to me. At least, I didn't notice a "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone" clause anywhere in his statement.

    8. Re:In all seriousness by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      They want the West to quit meddling in their own affairs...they don't want to convert you...they don't even like you.
      I'm not going to lump all Muslims together. However there is a distinct cross section of them that tend to radicalize otherwise peaceful movements. What these people want is an Islamic theocracy to be established everywhere they happen to be. They don't want to convert you (convince you to choose their religion) instead they want to force it upon you. If you don't take on their religion you pay higher taxes (I shit you not). For an example of how this happens look at Somalia. It starts off peaceful as a way to promote justice an peace and then the radicals move in and take over.
    9. Re:In all seriousness by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you don't NEED very many of them for it to happen. You only need... about 19 of them to knock down some buildings actually.

      Of course, they didn't do that alone - they were supported by resources from a lot more people. Money, material support, communications and coordination. Reducing the number of pissed-off people does reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. No policy will eliminate them, but overthrowing elected governments to install totalitarian puppet dictators a la Iran isn't exactly calculated to win friends.

      (Note: motive is not the same thing as justification. Homicide investigators look for motive when solving a murder, they don't look for justification. The Islamist lunatics are not justified in attacking innocents by our actions, but they are in part motivated by them.)

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    10. Re:In all seriousness by slartibart · · Score: 1

      But there is a sizable group of people that won't be happy until our men all have beards, and our women are wearing burkas.

      What a load of crap. Show me one statement/website/whatever where ANY pseudo-legitimate group has even suggested such a thing (other than home-grown groups)?

      You have completely misinterpreted what the rest of the world (not just the Islamic part) has been saying to the West. They want the West to quit meddling in their own affairs...they don't want to convert you...they don't even like you.

      ;-)

      I think you underestimate just now many religious nutcases there are. Not just Muslims, but any religion. There are probably millions of muslims (although still a small minority) who do in fact want an all-muslim world and don't care whether the rest convert or die to reach that end. The only difference between them and a lot of Christians, is that the jihadists say these things out loud. Nutcase Christians just smile on the inside when heathens get killed, because they think that God kills heathens for not believing in Jesus.

      The real point though, is not whether or not these nutcases exist, it's whether they're a real threat. I don't think they are a real threat and we should probably just ignore them.
    11. Re:In all seriousness by xaxa · · Score: 1

      How about an interstate railway system? (A good one, built at least to the European or Japanese standards of high speed travel.)

    12. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

      Does that include dismantling the BATF and repealing gun controls?

      Because the things that made Mohammed Atta "want to knock our buildings down" are probably not the same things made Timothy McVeigh "want to knock our buildings down."

    13. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

      So you'd appease the anti-abortion terrorists and eco-terrorists, too?

    14. Re:In all seriousness by josephdrivein · · Score: 1

      The real point though, is not whether or not these nutcases exist, it's whether they're a real threat. I don't think they are a real threat and we should probably just ignore them. Didn't 9/11 prove exactly the opposite?
    15. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

      In other words, "submit" like a good Islamist?

      Coward.

      May the filth of a thousand swine be shampoo unto your beard.

      Rinse.

      Repeat.

    16. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down."

      Please elaborate.

    17. Re:In all seriousness by Copid · · Score: 1

      But that's the point, that you don't NEED very many of them for it to happen. You only need... about 19 of them to knock down some buildings actually.
      And had it been only those 19, this whole thing would be over. Had it been only those 19 plus a few more running the operations, the remainder would have been turned over to us and would be rotting in jail and the whole mess would be over. The fact that it was those 19 plus thousands of people who are pissed off enough at us that they've dropped whatever they're doing to support these nut cases is a direct result of our extraordinary unpopularity in some areas.

      The point is that you can't make policy like that. There is NO policy that won't make somebody, somewhere want to come and cause violence. It's how large a threat they have the potential or have PROVEN themselves to be versus the resources needed to defend against them. And of course, try not to deliberately antagonize either when you don't have to, but regardless, I repeat that there is NO policy that won't piss somebody, somewhere, off enough to want to cause harm.
      There's no reason to make policies to keep the crazy people happy. You just have to make policies that keep the crazy people in an obvious minority so they're easily policed and neutralized. Domestic terrorists in the US, while they do occasionally succeed (see Oklahoma City), don't typically get very far because their friends and neighbors think they're fucking nuts. They don't say, "You have a legitimate grievance and the American government deserves what it gets when you blow up their buildings. I will look the other way or provide financial or material support in your efforts." They say, "You want to do WHAT?!?!?" and call the police. If the same thing held true in the regions these terrorist groups operated in, we'd be in much better shape.

      Basically, do reasonable things to keep reasonable people happy, and that fixes 99% of your problems with the unreasonable ones. The other 1% can be left to law enforcement and the military with the blessing of the reasonable people.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    18. Re:In all seriousness by Skim123 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although you have to seriously wonder if OBL (or his ilk) would have even bothered the West if the West hadn't:

      • Propped up the Shah in Iran
      • Propped up the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia
      • Supplied Israel with advanced weaponry
      • Supplied Saddam with weaponry to wage war with Iran

      Our foreign policy over the past 75 years has been screwy and downright slimey at times. We like to preach democracy, but we don't hesitate to help prop up un-popular dictators who will bend to our will.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    19. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >they don't even like you.

      And they certainly don't want you going to their version of Heaven.

    20. Re:In all seriousness by jabster · · Score: 1

      The real point though, is not whether or not these nutcases exist, it's whether they're a real threat. I don't think they are a real threat and we should probably just ignore them.
        Didn't 9/11 prove exactly the opposite?


      No!!!

      It just means that we need to ignore them harder!!

      -john

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    21. Re:In all seriousness by jabster · · Score: 1, Informative

      When Thomas Jefferson asked a delegate of the Barbary Pirates to stop raiding ships and selling the crews into slavery, he was told that they can not stop doing that. Allah requires it.

      Finish this phrase:
      Those who do not know their history are:

      And for god-sakes. Would you read your last line again? We are trying to help establish a democracy in Iraq! Damned if we do; damned if we don't.

      -john

      (I'm really starting to get pissed at all the blame America first, assholes. Learn some history people. George Bush is not the root of all that is bad in this world. Western civilization is the best thing to ever happen to the world.)

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    22. Re:In all seriousness by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      I'll maybe push for a large domestic project rather than invent a war. Maybe an interstate highway syste... aww damn... I'll come up with something good.

      Energy independence. There are plenty of technical hurdles to be overcome, but that can be done. (the real obstacles are the afore-mentioned corporate and political hurdles...) Tax breaks for everyone who installs solar panels or some other form of energy production that returns energy to the grid. Massive overhauls of the electrical grid which make it more locally redundant. Etc. Lots to do... ;)

        But that is what the US needs if we're going to regain our independence, stay out of foreign ventures and rebuild our economy.

        Oh, and start seriously prosecuting corporations, lobby groups, and *individuals within those corps/groups* who violate US law. By prosecuting I mean PRISON.

      tic

    23. Re:In all seriousness by slartibart · · Score: 1

      Not in my opinion.

      Terrorists can strike us if they want to. We can throw all our rights out the window and let Dubya and his cronies spy on everyone they want and we're still not safe. Determined attackers can't be stopped- ask Israel, they've been getting attacked by terrorists for 50+ years. Invading two countries and making orphans of lots of nutcases' kids doesn't make things any better. We haven't eliminated terrorism, we just made the next generation of them a lot bigger.

      I'm not saying we shouldn't respond at all to attacks, but if we do, we need to do it quietly. We shouldn't be rolling in there with tanks waving American flags and doing half of Al Qaeda's recruiting for them.

    24. Re:In all seriousness by PinkPanther · · Score: 2, Insightful

      he was told that they can not stop doing that. Allah requires it.

      And in history, "we" were told that black people were not part of "God's people" by various churches. Just because one fool states something doesn't mean that has anything at all to do with the religion they claim to be a part.

      Western civilization is the best thing to ever happen to the world

      And it got that way because the people THEMSELVES took up the charge and established that civilization. It was not thrust down their throat, it was not created by an external FOREIGN force. Western civilization could NOT have come about by people who didn't fundamentally understand the people who encompass that civilization.

      Learn history? Learn history?? Like what, the formation of Isreal? Pakistan? Afghanistan?

      Learn history? Like learn what happens when a foreign force intervenes in Iraq (I'm talking 30 years ago...oh, 15 years ago...oh, today).

      C'mon. This isn't a GWB slam-a-thon. This is a Western-leaders-listen-to-your-own-experts-a-thon. GWB is just the latest.

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    25. Re:In all seriousness by ricegf · · Score: 1

      Supplied Israel with advanced weaponry

      Actually, this is the biggie in terms of terrorist recruiting. If we'd just let our most loyal ally in the Middle East (a democracy at that) be "driven into the sea" by the dictators and Islamic governments that surround it, as they keep screaming that they want to do, then either (1) they'd leave us alone, or (2) they'd be a lot less distracted from launching the kind of attacks against us on U.S. soil they keep saying they really want to make.

      But the start of the thread was:

      Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

      That's an exceptionally poor foreign policy goal, IMHO, as it easily translates into "Ask terrorist states to lay out our policies for us so they're not offensive to Islamic radicals." I'm more in favor of "providing for the common defence" of the USA as our primary foreign policy goal at the moment. I don't believe appeasement has a very good track record at accomplishing that goal.

    26. Re:In all seriousness by Skim123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are trying to help establish a democracy in Iraq! Damned if we do; damned if we don't.

      We shouldn't ever be waging war to promote democracy. And if going into Iraq was just about "spreading freedom" - which is a laughable claim - then why aren't we "spreading freedom" to other countries in the world that are led by despots?

      We shouldn't be dicking with other countries' governments at all. We shouldn't be supplying arms and money to unpopular dictators. We shouldn't be sending in tanks and bombs to unseat a government we dislike. European powers shouldn't have carved up the Middle East 150 years ago into Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc., etc. They shouldn't have created Israel after WWII. They shouldn't have carved up Eastern Europe like they did after WWI. Britain shouldn't have been such meanies over in India. France shouldn't have tried to control Indochina. The US shouldn't have forced Japan to trade and modernize back in the early 20th century.

      I know I'm rambling here, but what I'm trying to say is that when one nation takes it upon themselves to direct the peoples of another nation, bad stuff is bound to happen. It might be minor bad stuff, or it might be major bad stuff. It might happen in 5 years, it might happen in 25 years, or it might happen in 100 years. But nothing good will comes of bullying other people around.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    27. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Noam Chomsky

    28. Re:In all seriousness by tic!lock · · Score: 1
      The first and foremost goal of the Islamic Jihadists is to convert the world to their beliefs.

      The first and foremost goal of the American capitalists is to convert the world to their beliefs.


      .they don't want to convert you...they don't even like you.

        The rest of us are in the middle somewhere. More or less. For the most part we just want to live our own lives, have jobs, raise children, find happiness, homes, live as decent moral human beings.

        Questions?

      tic

       

    29. Re:In all seriousness by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      It did.

        What it proved is that there is a war going on between the extremists on both sides. It's not exactly new, to anyone who's been paying attention during the last four decades(and indeed, anyone who knows any history).

        It's still astounding to me that there's so little historical memory here on slashdot. I know there are people here who are considerably older than I am (in my forties) and there are plenty of historical scholars here, but they just don't get modded up, apparently.

        Every damned time this issue comes up, there are the same tired old posts.

        Yeah, I guess I must be new here. Same old posts, same shit that's been rehashed thousands of times everywhere else, over, and over.

        Doesn't do much for one's faith in humanity ;)

      tic

    30. Re:In all seriousness by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        Not only that, we knew it was going to happen.

        (read Richard Clarke's excellent, if badly edited, book "Against All Enemies")

      toc

    31. Re:In all seriousness by TummyX · · Score: 0, Troll


      Our foreign policy over the past 75 years has been screwy and downright slimey at times


      What exactly is wrong with doing those things (except for the fact that OBL doesn't like it?). The US supports allies and pro-West governments. Wow, what a shocker.

      You really think that if the US was completely isolationist that OBL wouldn't "bother the west"? If the US did all the bad stuff, why are there attacks in more "peaceful" countries like the Netherlands?

    32. Re:In all seriousness by altoz · · Score: 1

      Very interesting point and very consistent as well, I might add.

      However, there is that small problem of countries gone wild. Our current militaristic policies are there for a good reason. Had we not stepped into WWII, Hitler very well may have succeeded. But he was clearly evil, you say... But where do you draw the line? According to your argument, we shouldn't have interfered with Hitler's government or try to "spread freedom" to France or Poland. In fact, that's exactly the argument that many people at that time made. Do we only interfere when countries attack other countries? Only when the government exterminates people? It's a very tricky question that's not so easily resolved with one overriding principle.

    33. Re:In all seriousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so your going to force everyone in America to convert cause that's one of those reasons they want to knock down our buildings.

    34. Re:In all seriousness by PinkPanther · · Score: 1
      Stepping into a war, when INVITED, is completely sensible. If a nation is being invaded and requests the assistance of other nations, then it is justifiable, moral and often in one's self-interest to provide such assistance.

      The question about genocide/extermination within one country's own borders is another matter. Personally I believe that this should be the key role of a body such as the United Nations: to establish consensus, define and implement policy on a per-case basis.

      Currently, however, the West has a bad reputation of involving itself in some locations on the bases of "freedom/peace/democracy" in locations that are blatantly in their self-interest and ignoring other locations where similar (or even worse) atrocities are occuring, mostly in places not of strategic or economic benefit to the West.

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    35. Re:In all seriousness by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      I am not sure you know what a straw man is. A straw man is where I set up a bad argument for my opponent, and then knock it down. My assertion is that to appease everyone who wants to destroy America, we would have to transform into a Muslim nation. I attacked the original poster's "let's stop doing things that would make them want to knock down our buildings". This is NOT a straw man argument.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    36. Re:In all seriousness by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      Doesn't do much for one's faith in humanity

      ...or in the election system.

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    37. Re:In all seriousness by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      ive as decent moral human beings

      Decency? Morality? Hmm....maybe I'll give them a whirl myself someday....

      ;-)

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    38. Re:In all seriousness by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Had we not stepped into WWII, Hitler very well may have succeeded.

      But why did we step in to WWII? It was because we were attacked, by Japan, and then Germany declared war on us! I am not saying that we should not defend ourselves. If we are attacked or if another nation declares war on us, then I am not opposed to using military might.

      As far as when we exert ourselves, I don't claim to have an answer that can be applied to all situations. What I do know is that it's poppycock to even remotely argue that going into Iraq was because we wanted to spread "freedom." If that was our lofty goal, then why did GWB make such a big deal about supposed WMD? Why did he try to speciously tie Saddam to OBL and 9/11? And if we are all for spreading freedom then why do we focus attention on some nations but not others? Why does Iraq get our attention? Why did we pull out of Somalia? Why aren't there troops in Kenya right now? Why did we waffle during genocide in Rwanda? Why did we do nothing when Pol Pot was murdering millions of Cambodians? Et cetera, et cetera.

      I agree that bad shit happens in the world. There are dictators and murderers and oppressors. But why is it our responsibility to put an end to it all? I would hope we'd get our domestic issues straightened out first before we invest too much time, energy, or resources in trying to fix others' problems.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    39. Re:In all seriousness by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      What exactly is wrong with doing those things (except for the fact that OBL doesn't like it?).

      Because it results in the people of this country hating us. Put yourselves in their shoes. How would you like it if you lived in a country where another country was propping up an unpopular and brutal leader? And then how would you interpret someone from the country propping up your despot saying, "What exactly is wrong with doing that?"

      OBL would have just been a crazy nobody if it weren't for the West's involvement in the Middle East. Sure, there's been strife in that region for millennia, but if the West had totally staid out of the region there'd be no artificially borders, like those that define Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Israel. There would never have been a radical Islamist government in Iran. Sure, things over there would probably be a lot less civilized at this point in time, there would probably have been a lot more civil war, but I assure you that there would have been less negative consequences on the Western world.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    40. Re:In all seriousness by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      That's actually not what you said. You constructed a statement I did not make, and argued against that. That is the very definition of a straw man. What you said "My assertion..." denies your claim in the same paragraph. You may have thought that was what I was saying but the crux is in what was actually said. And in reality that would appease almost no-one. You see all of the infighting going on in the Muslim world? A jerk is a jerk no matter what hat he wears or banner he flies. Do you really think that I'm only talking about Muslims or the war? Do you think they're the only people that have reason to be angry with America?

      I'll give you a hand for looking it up though. You might read some Noam Chomsky if you're interested in America's role in the world. You might not agree with his opinions, but the facts are thoroughly researched, documented, and irrefutable. Unlike so many pundits in the media he never confuses the two.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    41. Re:In all seriousness by gishzida · · Score: 1

      The "European Powers" didn't "create Israel"... The only European power of that era that might have had any say was England and they would have been quite happy with a Jordanian / Syrian / Lebanese / Egyptian Palestine... But it seems the Jewish People had made other plans and decided that after all of the things that they had suffered that it was time for creating a place to call their own. The reality is that there is a lot of "stupid stuff" done by many "major powers" over the years... mostly done at the behest of people [or corporations] who would make a lot of money from wars, police actions, genocide, loose environmental laws etc.. Wars are an extension of Economics. They are usually fought to redistribute wealth.. It can be argued that even the rise of Islamic Theocracies are another just holier than thou 'kill you and take your stuff' economics. But that my friends is what "free market capitalism" is all about: protecting corporate profits with the blood of the citizens.

    42. Re:In all seriousness by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      The "European Powers" didn't "create Israel"...

      Depends what you mean by "create." I grant that the city of Jerusalem was not created by the European Powers, and that that region is the holy center of Judaism, but the European Powers did lend a hand in forming the modern day nation state of Israel. From Wikipedia's entry on Israel:

      The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel, a concept central to Judaism for over three thousand years. After World War I, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate for Palestine with the intent of creating a "national home for the Jewish people".[7] In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of the Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.
      -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

      But that my friends is what "free market capitalism" is all about: protecting corporate profits with the blood of the citizens.

      I think it's more of, "that's what the 'human condition' is all about." War and redistribution of wealth was happening long before the first corporate charter was effected.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    43. Re:In all seriousness by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      "Supplied Saddam with weaponry to wage war with Iran" Uh... What weaponry, exactly? Iraqi weapons systems: Aircraft -- MiGs. Soviet Union. Tanks -- TU72. Soviet Union. Ballistic missiles -- SCUD. Soviet Union. Anti-ship missiles -- Exocet. France. Infantry weapon -- AK47. Soviet Untion. Again... Just what, exactly, Iraqi arms were supplied by the U.S.? The only aid I recall the U.S. giving Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war was some satellite imagery, and some of that was disinformation.

    44. Re:In all seriousness by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      The US gov't did not directly supply Iraq with weaponry, but many British- and US-based companies did sell arms to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. The US gov't did sell Iraq "dual-use" goods, which were not weapons per se, but could be used in the logistics of waging war.

      But you are right, my post read like the gov't was selling Iraq bombs, and that was not the case. My main point, though, was that the US gov't did have a stake in the war. President Raegan did not want to see Iran win this war because he feared a fundamentalist regime would take over Iraq, like it had in Iran in 1979. But would a fundamentalist regime have taken over Iran if the Shah had not been forcibly placed in power by British and Americans decades earlier?

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    45. Re:In all seriousness by tic!lock · · Score: 1


        And especially not in the integrity of the media. I watched a few hours of media candidate talk the other night, and came away with the impression that these people might make great actors, but they sure as hell aren't journalists.

        tic

    46. Re:In all seriousness by demigod · · Score: 1

      If the economy takes a dive, I'll maybe push for a large domestic project rather than invent a war. Maybe an interstate highway syste... aww damn... I'll come up with something good.


      How about massive public owned wind farms?

      --
      "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
      Major Major
  12. Read My Lips by fenodyree · · Score: 1

    No More Dupes!
    And all editors proven incompetent shall be ground into a fine product: Torgo's Executive Powder

  13. for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    overturn 2001-2008

  14. Answer the magic question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "What would Hitler do?"

    Let's watch and find out!

  15. Simple answer by SeanTobin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In order:
    • Have Ron Paul be my VP
    • Get legislation introduced eliminating the DMCA, Patriot Act
    • Get legislation introduced mandating consumer copyright bill of rights and resetting copyright terms to the term when the work was created
    • Resign, enjoy my retirement, pension & SS protection
    • Watch as Ron Paul fixes the economy, foreign & domestic policy
    I'd try to get the first four items done within the first 24 hours. I don't think I could handle being president any longer than that.

    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
    1. Re:Simple answer by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I'd try to get the first four items done within the first 24 hours

      Just as Jack Bauer how many issues can happen around a president in those 24 hours... they might be more difficult than you think!

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Simple answer by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      Dang!! That was almost exactly what I was going to post.

      One addition: Before resigning I'd pardon everyone who is incarcerated on any type of non-violent between-consenting-adults sex or drugs charge.

    3. Re:Simple answer by anom · · Score: 1

      You guys are all missing one of the most important ones: Immediately repeal a good portion of the Executive Orders currently in effect.

    4. Re:Simple answer by caramelcarrot · · Score: 1

      You forgot to stockpile gold first before appointing Ron Paul.

    5. Re: Simple answer by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Have Ron Paul be my VP You mean this guy?

      He's certainly right about the war and a few other things, but you've got to consider the whole candidate.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Simple answer by tepples · · Score: 1

      Get legislation introduced eliminating the DMCA, Patriot Act Would your administration kill[1] all of the DMCA, or would it kill the anti-circumvention provision (17 USC 1201) and leave the service providers' safe harbor (17 USC 512) and other DMCA riders?

      Get legislation introduced [...] resetting copyright terms to the term when the work was created

      There are two practical problems with rolling back the copyright term. First, the copyright industry might spin any rollback of the copyright term as a taking of private (intellectual) property for public (domain) use and demand a check for "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment. Second relates to foreign policy: all World Trade Organization members must be parties to the Berne Convention, which mandates a minimum life plus 50 year copyright term. Under your proposal, works published before 1976 where the author lived for more than six years after publication would not qualify.

      [1] Only Congress can repeal a bill that has become law. The administration can kill parts of the criminal code in practice, such as by having the FBI look the other way or pardoning those found guilty, but I don't see what power the administration has over civil judgments.

    7. Re:Simple answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on just a second! How is having a transvestite as VP going to solve anything? Oh wait, I'm thinking of Rupaul, my apologies.

    8. Re:Simple answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch as Ron Paul fixes the economy, foreign & domestic policy

      This comment was supposed to be modded "Funny" right? Oh, you were serious...
      I'll spare you my lecture on why Ron Paul's ideas simply won't work, at all, and hope that perhaps one day you will gain some insight into why.

    9. Re:Simple answer by v0x0j · · Score: 1
      Watch as Ron Paul fucks up the economy, foreign & domestic policy

      FTFY. Seriously. Guy wants increase tax burden on middle class ("fair tax"), close the UN (and don't have any better replacement), and does not believe in evolution and wants to increase state support for religion.

    10. Re:Simple answer by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      He's got my vote.

    11. Re:Simple answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul is a libertarian (and I presume you are too, or at least you have similar political beliefs).

      Why would he support legislation mandating a consumer copyright bill of rights? He does not support government regulation or government oversight of trade, so I don't see him pushing for consumers' rights. He opposes network neutrality (because he opposes government regulation of the internet). He also supports privatized health care. When you're sick or in an ambulance, do you really have a choice where to receive treatment?

      As others have pointed out, Paul is nothing but a racist and a bigot. You might like him for some of his views, but the rest of his platform is ridiculous.

    12. Re: Simple answer by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      The amount of support that Ron Paul has scares me to death, because he's a nutjob, and is honest about it.

      Granted, honesty is an important characteristic to have, and I do appreciate the need for the US government to stick more closely to the constitution, but the rest of his platform makes Bush look like a liberal teddy-bear.

      Does the US government need substantial reform/a new direction? Perhaps.
      Is Ron Paul the answer? HECK NO!

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    13. Re:Simple answer by transami · · Score: 1
      --
      :T:R:A:N:S:
    14. Re: Simple answer by JordanL · · Score: 1

      He's been in politics 30 years, and the best they can smear him with is a newsletter that he neither wrote nor editted? Sign me up.

    15. Re: Simple answer by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      How is Ron Paul a nutjob? You're talking about a sitting US Congressman and a practicing doctor. Not to straw man you, but I will address a position that many people feel is crazy.

      Gold standard: not a good idea IMO, but it's not crazy. Such a system has worked in the past. Would be really hard to implement in a single presidency, but he says he supports it not that he can enforce it immediately.

      Dismantling the IRS: what have they done for you lately? A new organization for assessing taxes makes sense if you radically change taxation.

      I don't know what else you think makes him crazy.

    16. Re: Simple answer by rthille · · Score: 1

      Well, he's a Doctor who denies evolution for one. How the hell did he get thru biology, much less medical school and still not see the truth of evolution?

      Second, he thinks the separation of church and state is a bad thing and wants to amend the constitution to "fix" that.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    17. Re: Simple answer by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      You don't have to crazy to reject the theory of evolution, so long as you do it on a reasonable basis. I see no evidence that Paul's rejection is based on anything other than science. Remember it's a theory because nobody's proven it yet, and therefore a reasonable man is still entitled to his opinion based on the evidence.

      You're just wrong about his supposed rejection of the separation of church and state. He simply has a different (read better) interpretation of the relevant parts of the constitution than some others. Compare him to most republicans who believe in this concept of church and state but support faith based initiatives, legislating morality, etc. RP who supposedly rejects the concept, merely supports allowing Christmas to happen as in the past. Most importantly Ron Paul supports the separation of the state and YOU. That's not crazy that's policy.

    18. Re: Simple answer by rthille · · Score: 1

      You need to be either "crazy" or willfully ignorant to reject evolution. It's not really insane in the clinical sense, it's just that you were indoctrinated with a horrible belief system which makes you reject reality in favor of a nice myth. You certainly can't reject evolution based on science, no matter what word games you play with the word "theory".

      And for the separation of church and state, if you want a joined church and state, I advise you to look at the wonderful states of Saudi Arabia & Iran for examples of the tyranny which results.

      Ron Paul does have some good ideas about reducing the role of government in our lives...unfortunately the ideas are in the same package with a bunch of batshit crazy ones.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  16. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2, Informative

    FYI Lyrics by Wyclef Jean, "If I Was President"

  17. If I was president by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister · · Score: 1

    I'd get elected on Friday.
    Assassinated on Saturday.
    Buried on Sunday.

    --

    He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
    1. Re:If I was president by zyzzx0 · · Score: 1

      I'd get elected on Friday. Assassinated on Saturday. Buried on Sunday.
      You beat me to it.... nice.
    2. Re:If I was president by techpawn · · Score: 1

      President Harrison still has you beat...

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    3. Re:If I was president by treeves · · Score: 1

      Of course, in the US, elections are always on Tuesdays...

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  18. Going back to capitalism. by pwnies · · Score: 0

    As a capitalist myself, I disagree with a lot of the redistribution of wealth ideals we have going on. I'd probably abolish (or at least tone down) social security to start with.
    Also, I'd commercialize a lot of the government functions. I'd attempt to start having the government MAKE money rather than take it via taxes. In sectors where the government was failing to make money, I'd attempt to privatize it. Take the US mail for instance - it used to be a government ran cooperation, but went under private ownership and saved a ton of money by working for profits. Many of the other government functions could also be reassigned in this manor.
    I'd also abolish unions. There was a time and a place for them, but not today. The only thing they do is interrupt the flow of commerce. If you want a higher wage, don't cry to your union, go work somewhere else.
    Obviously things such as country wide internet access would be beautiful, however I think the government would need to have more money to take on a task such as that.

    1. Re:Going back to capitalism. by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      Obviously things such as country wide internet access would be beautiful, however I think the government would need to have more money to take on a task such as that. Who would control it? I can see the Slashdot title now "Governments wants to set up country-wide internet access". Tagged "WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong"
    2. Re:Going back to capitalism. by sktea · · Score: 5, Informative

      Take the US mail for instance - it used to be a government ran cooperation, but went under private ownership and saved a ton of money by working for profits.

      Are you high?

      The U.S. Postal Service is an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," according to statute; it is wholly government-owned and, as such, is exempt from prosecution under the Sherman Act, according to the Supreme Court. I quote from this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=540&page=736

      "The Postal Service has different goals, obligations, and powers from private corporations. Its goals are not those of private enterprise. The most important difference is that it does not seek profits, but only to break even...."

      PUH-leeze. Get the facts wrong, and you're MY meat.

      --
      Sometimes I have to say to hell with it and just eat my jellybeans.
    3. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Beastmouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Abolish unions? Right to peaceably assemble much? How about, instead of becoming President, you actually study what happened the last time assholes like you were in even more control: Ever hear of the Gilded Age?

    4. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Zerth · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, by insisting that each product be sustainable on its own, the USPS just quadrupled the cost of mailing books and other reading material. This has greatly impacted charities and other organizations that provided free/low-cost school books & helped stock libraries.

    5. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the US Government circa 1920. Ah, the gilded age, when unions got broken, the rich got richer, and the poor stayed quiet. I forget, how did that work out in the 30s?

    6. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

      I notice "capitalists" rarely value history or read it. Some countries tried pure capitalism...Chile, Brazil, Bolivia look um up

    7. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you on favoring capitalism and moving away from the populist/isolationist/socialist fairy tale that gets trotted out by some people here, but I think that would argue for unions. Big companies get to squeeze consumers in the name of a free market and unions are just the other side of the equation - they are consumers' bargaining strength within a free market. If you are willing to give financial freedom to made-up people (corporations), you should at the very least provide equivalent freedom to real people.

    8. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Beastmouth · · Score: 1

      Some proponents of the Chicago School still brag about what their boys set up when they went down to give Pinochet an invisible hand. Other people, we still get a little steamed at mass murder.

    9. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I think that you just fed a troll.

      The other clue was, "In sectors where the government was failing to make money." In theory, this should be just about every sector except for the IRS, which collects funds so that the government can function.

    10. Re:Going back to capitalism. by prelelat · · Score: 1

      have you met the people who run large companies, they are dicks. I've only been apart of a union once, and I can say it was pretty worthless, and in todays day and age wasn't worth it. But to get rid of unions means that a company no longer has to worry about employees having problems. Factory workers are a dime a dozen just replace em. Thats how my one job was that wasn't unionized. You take away unions as a whole and wait and see what happens to how companies treat their employees. Unions have a place, the instill fear, I don't think it's the Presidents job to get rid of them. Having someone to stand up for the little guy is a good thing, it's what a president should do.

      If I were to be president(I can't I'm not an American don't live in the states and so forth) I would try to not privatize as much as possible, keep things government owned as much as I can. To run a budget budget that makes a profit so that it can be invested into future costs and leave it at that. I would also increase spending on health care and living. I'm not too sure how bad it is down there but I know there are people around here that have jobs that can't afford housing. Investing in affordable housing(not just for the poor but middle income) benefits everyone. Money could be taken out of a reduced spending on war on Terror and useless comities that discover useless facts.

      I would try to make people feel less like criminals, by fixing how peoples privacy is treated. If your aren't doing anything wrong then you shouldn't be watched. Instead of "If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about". Stop stupid things like ceasing things in a routine traffic stop because it looks like it could be involved in an illegal activity, and never releasing it. The U.S. is suppose to be a land of the free, keep it that way. I'm really conflicted on copy write laws, and the DMCA. I'm sure that would be the first thing to go for some people. I think I would have to modify the current laws to require more physical evidence than just an IP address before it can even see a judge, thats for sure. Patriot act would be either re-written or removed, there are a ton of things in there that seem to be unconstitutional from what I understand of the U.S.'s constitution.

      I would shake up the major government organizations like the FBI not to get rid of them just to make sure they have a few more checks and balances when it comes to public privacy. Not sure what I would do with the Department of Homeland Security. I thought that the FBI was doing that job before. I would probably take their resources and make them a branch of the FBI instead of it's own agency.

      Lastly the war in Iraq, a lot of people say pull out. Thought I do agree that the U.S. should never have gone in their in the first place, leaving now seems irresponsible. One guy said it will cause a civil war either way, I would hope that maybe we could have a better resolution. War is a bloody mess, and I can't begin to think of how to clean it up. The costs to the U.S. for the war in Iraq has cost a lot in lives as well as money. Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last 8 years. Maybe pulling out and letting the Iraqis sort it out will work. On the other hand fighting could go on for 50 years until someone decides that it would never have happened if the Americans hadn't stepped in and they blow up something. Look at what happened to Afghanistan after we supplied them with weapons during the cold war. Pulling out of Iraq in it's current state seems short sighted for more reasons than one. Not pulling out seems short sighted and unsafe for our own people. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't. So I would be sitting on that button as president playing a more PR friendly version of "ini mini miny mo"

      Comes down to it there are few people who can become president and do it right. You roll the roulet wheel on peoples lives, the economy. I wouldn't want that job. A lot of luck involved.

    11. Re:Going back to capitalism. by plehmuffin · · Score: 1
      As a capitalist myself ... I'd attempt to start having the government MAKE money rather than take it via taxes.

      Private enterprise is supposed to provide the society with what the government can't, and vice versa. I.E. The government is supposed to do the things which society needs but which aren't profitable. The government isn't there to compete with private enterprise. What you describe sounds more like fascism than capitalism.

    12. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Tom · · Score: 1

      I'd attempt to privatize it. Because that's been such a tremendeously successful concept for the past decades?

      I live in Germany. Let me tell you a few short stories:

      Energy. Used to be in the hands of local, government-owned companies. Privatized around 15 years ago. Now largely in the hands of a handfull of international corporations. Energy prizes have risen ever since. The government-owned companies used to make good profits already, which were often used to subsidize less profitable government-owned companies, like public transportation. Currently, the major energy corporations are under investigation for illegal price agreements. Meanwhile, energy costs just rose another 7% (on average) at years's start.

      Post Office. Privatized maybe 10 years ago. Prices mostly stable since then (still under government control), quality slightly dropped (e.g. number of lost mail has increased considerably). Lots and lots of post offices have been closed, especially in rural areas. Not profitable. The mailmen have much larger areas to cover now, and most of them are employed part-time or as temporary workers. Wages have gone down.

      Public Transport - train service. The german Bundesbahn (federal train company) used to be world-famous for punctuality, maybe you still remember. The Bundesbahn was turned into "Die Bahn AG" ("the train company") in a slow process that started maybe 10 years ago. Since then, tickets have become more expensive constantly. During the past four years, on the line that I frequently use the price went up about 40%, that's around 10% per year. Punctuality is a thing of the past, delays of 5-15 minutes are frequent, delays of 30-60 minutes fairly common. My personal record is four hours on a trip that should've taken 6 hours (and took 10). Service is horrible, you will find long queues in front of every ticket counter in every train station in every major city. Or at least I see them _every_ time I look and that's not an exaggeration. Hundreds of train stations are closed every year, especially in rural areas. Not profitable. Trains are regularily filled to capacity, not randomly but at well-known times, always. You'd think they'd add a train or at least a few cars, but you're mistaken, they don't. Not even for trains where I can tell you today that that train will be filled to capacity this week, next week, and every week of the year. Work conditions for the employees have become so bad that the drivers went on strike last year in order to get their weekly work week reduced to 40 hours. They also haven't had a raise in years.

      Should I go on? There are more examples. I will say for the sake of being fair, that the privatization of the telco company has been mostly successful. It is also still heavily regulated by a government office.

      No, you miss one very important point: The purpose of a government isn't to make money. It is to serve the people.

      And that is true of most of the examples I mentioned above. The purpose of the train system shouldn't be to make money, but to provide mobility to a people. The purpose of the post office shouldn't be profit, but to provide communications to a people. etc.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:Going back to capitalism. by sidb · · Score: 1

      In addition, it's worth pointing out that Congress might not be able to privatize the postal service even if it wanted to. Article 8 of the Constitution, which lists powers of Congress, includes, "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads." The language doesn't expressly forbid privatization, but a public service was clearly the intent.

    14. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very happy that you will never become President.

    15. Re:Going back to capitalism. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      You mean Article I, Section 8. Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war, too, but there's nothing that says they have to continuously do so every year. Those are enumerated powers, not obligations.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    16. Re:Going back to capitalism. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Get the facts wrong, and you're MY meat.

      Says the guy who misspelled "steak".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  19. 'In God We Trust' by CyberBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would remove "In God We Trust" as the national motto, as well as removing the "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. After that, I'd put limits on advertising and marketing which are constantly being shoved in our faces. Then I'd make Network Neutrality a reality. I'd pull out troops out of Iraq. Gay marriage would be legalized at the federal level. Basically I'd pretty much change everything. :)

    --
    -Bill
    1. Re:'In God We Trust' by PopeZaphod · · Score: 1

      You've got my vote!

      --
      ->
    2. Re:'In God We Trust' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank God your not going to be President!

    3. Re:'In God We Trust' by STrinity · · Score: 1

      The question was what you would do as President, not dictator.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    4. Re:'In God We Trust' by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Sounds good. I'd also add requiring free radio/television time to candidates to lower the fundraising aspect of national politics.

    5. Re:'In God We Trust' by Cannelloni · · Score: 1

      Yeah, since it doesn't even say WHICH god it refers to: Jehova, Jesus, Wodin (Oden, Odin, Wotan) or any of the Roman, Greek or Phoenician gods? Mammon, perhaps?

      --
      Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
    6. Re:'In God We Trust' by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I would remove "In God We Trust" as the national motto, as well as removing the "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. After that, I'd put limits on advertising and marketing which are constantly being shoved in our faces. Then I'd make Network Neutrality a reality. I'd pull out troops out of Iraq. Gay marriage would be legalized at the federal level. Basically I'd pretty much change everything. :) Apparently, including how laws are written and passed.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:'In God We Trust' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Under God' is really just an archaic way of saying 'God willing,' so what its really saying it 'One Nation, God willing,' as is 'Gee, I sure hope the country remains united.' So what, its a phrase that mentions religion; if you're really offended by it that much, I suggest you spend the rest of your life under a rock where you'll never encounter anyone else's opinions.

    8. Re:'In God We Trust' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently some pathetic conservative asshole disagreed with you, but is not mature enough to do it with his words.

    9. Re:'In God We Trust' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they ever make another remake of "Miracle on 34th Street" then Santa is going to need another argument for his defense

  20. Hemp by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would legalize hemp for industrial uses and decriminalize marijuana. There are so many great industrial uses for hemp that it is absolutely stupid not to be using it. Marijuana is also far safer than alcohol. Other than that big one I'd probably try to come up with some sort of Peace Corp like serious public works project to take care of the infrastructure in this country. I'd also like to see a similar program setup overseas in countries that would have us. Instead of sending in troops with guns and tanks, we could send in Americans with seeds and tractors. Maybe I'm a bit too idealistic, but I have a hard time believing that we wouldn't be well received around the world if we spent as much on actually improving infrastructure and agriculture and water supplies as we spend on bombs and guns and bullets and other military expenses.

    1. Re:Hemp by pwnies · · Score: 1

      Hemp is already legal, and has always been. It's just the cannabis variety of it that's illegal. There are many other strains of it, and it is often used in shipping riggings as it makes a very strong natural fiber rope. Occasionally you'll see it in clothing and materials as well.

    2. Re:Hemp by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Can you point me to some resources that confirm your statement about it being legal? I know that you can be in possession of hemp products like clothing, rope, etc. My understanding is that it is still illegal to grow it within the United States.

    3. Re:Hemp by kdcttg · · Score: 1

      Just the cannabis variety of hemp that is illegal? All hemp is cannabis, its just that not all cannabis is hemp. Although I have no idea about the law in the USA you probably meant that cannabis hemp is legal, but not cannabis sativa or cannabis indica.

    4. Re:Hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's gonna work in your Peace Corps? All your drugged up, sit on the couch all day eating funyons and watching Jim Brewer hippy constituents? They would never get out of the country.

    5. Re:Hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And back here in the real world...there are plenty of people who would continue to hate us, even if we weren't making war.
      "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

    6. Re:Hemp by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You might want to avoid sending in seeds, as that can do more to destroy an area than guns and tanks ever could (Especially if they're Monsanto seeds). Instead, send in people to teach the locals how to take care of their land in a more responsible way and leverage local underutilized crops.

      Believe me... sending in seeds could turn a struggling area into a wasteland in short order, as the seeds wreak havoc on the local ecology and the locals misuse them (including killing each other over them).

    7. Re:Hemp by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      All hemp is cannabis...

      While what you say is true, it should be pointed out that the term "hemp" is sometimes used for fibers other that cannabis. From Webster's:

      2: a fiber (as jute) from a plant other than the true hemp; also : a plant yielding such fiber

      Now, of course, the fact that this definition uses the phrase "true hemp" indicates that referring to other fibers as hemp is in some sense a misusage, but nonetheless it exists. I only point this out because I had this argument with someone before.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    8. Re:Hemp by QCompson · · Score: 1

      Hemp is already legal, and has always been. Under federal law, it is illegal to grow industrial hemp in the United States.
    9. Re:Hemp by sinthetek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think he meant "...to possess". AFAIK, it has always been legal to possess *processed* hemp/hemp-products I think, but growth or possession of new hemp has been illegal since prohibition until recently except for a brief period in wwII IIRC.

      I think I heard it's now legal in .us but if they happen to test the THC level and it's more than like 10x less potent than recreational cannabis, it is illegal. Kinda sucks considering there is still wild cannabis, not to mention illegally cultivated, I think that could cross-pollinate, unintentionally putting the THC level over the limit and endangering farmers so it is a high-risk exploit even if it is technically legal.

    10. Re:Hemp by dave562 · · Score: 1

      That's a good point that I didn't really consider in depth. I was being alagorical. (Oh grammar/spelling Nazi's, strike this post down). The meta-point that I was making is that I believe money would be better spent improving infrastructure and agriculture in foreign lands as opposed to spending it on military occupants that result in thousands of deaths.

    11. Re:Hemp by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Hemp is not legal, and can only be grown on specially regulated farms.

      On a related note, hemp is one of the most durable fabrics known to man. But I'm sure the textile industry isn't behind marijuana prohibition.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    12. Re:Hemp by irritating+environme · · Score: 1

      REALLY?

      You're #1 priority in the entire fucked up world and laundry list of problems is to legalize Hemp?

      That will solve the financial crisis, the energy crisis, the overpopulation crisis, the radicalization of the muslims, the medical care crisis?

      Hemp legalization?

      --


      Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
    13. Re:Hemp by dave562 · · Score: 2, Informative

      A person is elected President for four years. The legalization of hemp is something that could conceivably happen during the course of a single administration. The legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use would provide a source of tax revenue for the government. That will help with finances. It can be used to produce hemp oil that can be used as a lubricant for machinery. That will help with the energy crisis. It grows faster than trees and produces more fiber per acre that can be used for paper and lumber. It also requires less water than cotton and produces more cloth than cotton per acre. It also doesn't require the extreme amounts of pesticides that cotton does. All of those are good for the environment and will help to provide clothing and shelter the growing population. The hemp seed can be processed into food and it is very reach in essential amino acids. The radicalization of Muslims... well, lets all just sit around and smoke some weed. That will calm them down. ;) In all seriousness, no... hemp won't address that. Removing the incentive of them to attack us and providing them with propaganda (like killing hundreds of thousands of Arabs in Iraq) will help address that. Medical care crisis... ya, boo hoo freakin hoo. Cry me a river over expensive drugs and treatments that don't work. The answer to the medical crisis is healthy, nutrient rich food grown in fertile soil, clean water and exercise. All of those promote a healthy immune system.

    14. Re:Hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On a related note, hemp is one of the most durable fabrics known to man. But I'm sure the textile industry isn't behind marijuana prohibition.

      Why not? More durable fabrics mean less sales in the long run.

    15. Re:Hemp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe I'm a bit too idealistic, but I have a hard time believing that we wouldn't be well received around the world if we spent as much on actually improving infrastructure and agriculture and water supplies as we spend on bombs and guns and bullets"

      After the tsunami in Sri Lanka, a local was asked what he thought about the Americans there helping (not tanks and guns, but food and medicine). He said he thought it was okay as long as we didn't bring in alcohol and set up brothels.

      Really.

      That's what the rest of the world thinks about us.

      So they're probably not too interested in any seeds we'd send.

    16. Re:Hemp by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Then please do something about corporate personhood and lobbying, since that is why your dream hasn't come true. The peace corps will not make any money for the pharma, seed, etc corporations.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    17. Re:Hemp by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the bankers would sabotage the economy and you would be assassinated post-haste. They don't spend money on bombs and guns and bullets. They make huge profits from them. And if people aren't using them, then they aren't buying them. So then it becomes necessary to foment war and then sell to both sides. They see it as military investment, not expense. As good as your ideas are, and I would even carry them farther, they would cause a major upheaval in the military and law enforcement industries, and they simply won't stand for it. You would be arrested and/or killed, and martial law would be instituted. You would have to be prepared for all out war with these people. Which kinda puts you right back where you started. You will need the support of the population, and a lot more than just 51%, to pull it off.

      --
      What?
    18. Re:Hemp by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Yes; I think in broad strokes your platform is pretty good. Unfortunately, the way it actually works out based on good intentions is often not so rosy -- this is why most of the world just wants the US to butt out, except for some parts of the world that want to use American gifts to gain an unfair local advantage.

      This is an issue that plagues many charitable organizations. General consensus these days is that the most effective way to help others is to provide guidance and teaching tools to natives to the area, and empower them in spearheading the infrastructure improvement themselves.

    19. Re:Hemp by entrylevel · · Score: 1

      Actually it is illegal to grow hemp in the U.S. Perfectly legal to import it though.

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    20. Re:Hemp by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I would legalize hemp for industrial uses and decriminalize marijuana. What do you have against hand made hemp products? :-S
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    21. Re:Hemp by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      While I would agree on more use of hemp, decriminalizing marijuana is not such a good idea, given the well-known health effects of marijuana smoking.

      However, using more hemp does have a cost, especially in running into the issues of agricultural use (finding arable land, getting water, fertilizing plants, warding off pests, etc.), all of which aren't cheap. I'd rather go with growing oil-laden algae (which can be done even with brackish or seawater!) if you want a potentially large, easily-processed form of biomass for diesel fuel, heating oil, kerosene and ethanol.

    22. Re:Hemp by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Could you compare and contrast the health effects of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, to show what makes marijuana uniquely dangerous among the three?

      I'm curious, because I'm not sure there is a compelling case to be made.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  21. My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by jorenko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Kick off investigations of the crimes of the Bush administration.
    2. Scale down our forgein military presence (not quite to the extent Paul wants to, but significantly).
    3. Do everything in my power to get all of the unconstitutional legislation that has been passed in the last few years repealed (Patriot Act, MCA, etc).
    4. Balance the budget. I would lay down absolute ultimatums that government programs justify their existence and their tax cost to the American people, and cut anything that's not convincing. Maybe I'd even call for a vote on what programs get to stay. We would have to leave taxes at close to current for a few years and pay off our debt, though, I'm afraid.
    5. Not overstep the bounds of my office with signing statements, etc.

    1. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I've already posted what I would do, but your #4 reminded me of something else:

      I'd make it illegal to attach unrelated riders to bills. No more trying to sneak in Patriot Act Part 2 in an otherwise must-pass spending bill. No more sneaking in funds to build a bridge in a completely unrelated bill.

      I would also make two changes to how Congress votes on bills. First, I would require all bills to sit for at least 48 hours before being voted on. During that time, Congressfolk would have to (*gasp!*) read the bills they were voting on. I would make provisions for emergency legislation, but it would be severely limited in scope. The other change I would make is that how politicians vote on bills would be a matter of public record. No more "voice votes" where you don't know who voted for and against a particularly controversial piece of legislation. If a politician wants to vote for or against something, let it be recorded where people can see it come next election season.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by apt142 · · Score: 1

      #1 on your list has crossed my mind a lot over the last 8 years. Bush is untouchable because he's in charge of the units that would/could/should investigate him.

      He's done a lot of illegal and unconstitutional things and I doubt he'll ever spend a day in prison for them. Politically speaking, the next president will probably not launch an investigation. It would set too bad of a precedent.

      If I were president, I'd get some legislature in motion that added a better check and balance for this sort of situation. Congress should be able to do something about the president's illegal behaviors and it should not require a majority vote.

      I'd also see if there is a better alternative to our current voting system. I mean, if I was able to get elected...

      Oh, and the shrinking middle class. We need those middle class guys. I'd try to fix that too. Even if I had to stick my boot up some rich guys' asses.

    3. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      I find it funny how nobody says anything like "Let's get those terrorists!"

      I don't think its worth the president's time and efforts (nor things like what they did to Clinton) to investigate stuff. Bush got away with it, deal with it.

      I would look into getting back the middle class.

      I would look into alternative energy sources.

      I would look into limiting the power of those special interest lobby groups. I don't know how they get so much done, but these things are typically NOT in the public's interest, but to a few (rich people's) private interest. It kills me with things like the corn lobby has done.

      I would look into health issues, which in turn means considering drug and alcohol abuse as health issues, not criminal ones.

      I would have a few people just conveniently "disappear" (Much easier, quicker and cheaper than investigations and stuff).

      I would look into bringing states rights back, instead of the trend for the feds to do stuff. State laws are great, because they are like competition in the free market. They can learn from each other. The feds say something, and it takes a LONG time before they admit they were wrong (if ever). Its much easier to change states than countries.

      I would end the Iraq war (duh).

      I would also never get elected. I'm almost 100% in line with Ron Paul, but it seems like he has no chance to win. I'm not even near a Republican, but RP is sharp, and its ashame that someone like him cannot get elected. Maybe look into election reform? Multi-party system? I dunno. Like I said, even if I was squeaky clean, I would (and never the people I support) seem to get elected, so I'm in some kind of minority that just does not get any representation.

    4. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by jabster · · Score: 1

      I like your #3 there.

      And I'm also sure you'd do the following because they are unconstitutional:
      -end federal welfare
      -end Social Security
      -work to have abortion legality decided by each state
      -work to have the handgun bans in DC and Chicago overturned
      -repeal McCain-Feingold "finance reform"
      -end federal affirmative action programs
      -dutifully enforce the 10th Amendment

      I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that you wouldn't do any (or most) of those.

      I somehow doubt that "unconstitutional" is the word you're looking for.

      -john

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    5. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lost all credibility at #1.

      A real leader would just move on with the country.

      #2 is easier said than done.

      #3 and #5 are in mutual conflict. You over-estimate executive power.

      #4 is really at odds with #5.

      #5 seems to indicate you don't understand the duties, responsibilities, or limits of the office.

      Buh-bye. Maybe we'll hear from you again in 2012, but I hope not.

    6. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by jammer170 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but with all the things that have been under discussion on Slashdot as being disastrous for America, you decide that the highest priority item is to launch an investigation (and probably a highly expensive one at that)? People across the world are dieing from combat or hunger, lives are being ruined by corporate organizations run amok, and you want to begin a witch hunt? I certainly can't disagree with any of your other four points, but certainly there are hundreds of things more important than tearing apart the previous administration. Whether you like it or not, we are where we are, and conducting a lengthy, expensive investigation of a previous administration will not change that fact. Solve the other problems first, and if you have time left in your term, then you can spend time judging past administrations.

      --
      Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
    7. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by jabster · · Score: 1

      It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

      Without Bush all would be good in the world. Dogs and cats living together, etc.

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
    8. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Take the power of Impeachment from the Legislative and give it to The People. Allow The People to collect signatures on a petition. If they get X signatures, then they can force a National Referendum on Impeachment.

      At that point, a specific number of The People must vote for Impeachment.

      If the vote passes, then the government would basically shut down until the hearings had ended. It would not be necessary to have broken a law. No evidence would be needed. The People have voted No Confidence. Congress must decide how to proceed.

      If your local rep did not vote how you wanted, then you could also impeach at that level.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    9. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      >>people's) private interest. It kills me with things like the corn lobby has done.

      If you played at the big table, you'd understand.

      Corn is a *major* source of money in our economy. So is copyright. It's be nice to say let Corn and Mickey go F themselves. In reality, it *could* cause a MAJOR crash in our system.

      Please study the economic upheaval that occurred under Thatcher in the UK WRT socialism. Sure, they came out on top. However, it could have gone *very* bad.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    10. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      If The People don't like the laws, they can vote for change. There is no reason that Social Security can't be added to the Constitution. Likewise, there is no reason the Second Amendment can't be repealed.

      However, if the people want an Assault Weapons ban, they *must* amend the Constitution first. You cannot have a CITY restrict something explicitly granted under Federal Law.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    11. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      If you played at the big table, you'd understand.

      I'd be all for filling my pockets if that were the case.

      The thing is that like in my area peanuts were subsidized by the government for basically ever. They stopped the subsidies, and many of the farms (think Planters, peanuts) went out of business due to foreign competition. Some of the American peanuts are actually better, and growing those is still practical, but the generic peanuts can be grown in other places cheaper.

      The sad thing about subsidies, is they are like welfare or whatever. You become dependant upon them, and then when the rug is pulled from under your feet, you don't know what to do.

      In a free economy, these subsidies don't exist. With corn, its great for feeding people and animals (minus the HFC, sugar is better), but with the interest in biofuels, the whole thing is being muddied by these subsidies. Its impossible to tell what the price of corn is.

      Oh, and Mickey Mouse will be just OK. I mean how much money does Disney make off of Steam Boat Willie today? Copyright (and patents) have a place, but the Happy Birthday copyright is just silly. Many patents are silly. Its not the method or the idea that is really important, its the public's desire for said method and idea, and the ability to satisy that demand at a reasonable price. Which means not just thinking, but actually doing and producing. /rant

    12. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about making congresscritters read the whole of every bill (though it would have the advantage of cutting down on the volume and complexity of legislation passed, that might not be a universally good thing).

      But here's a counter-offer: All legislation must be done by wiki. Anyone slipping in a new provision at the last minute would have to attach their name and reputation to it, and it would be far easier to see what has been changed since the last time it came up for a vote. Knowing who gutted what bill and when could be very handy.

      Obviously, no anonymous editing.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    13. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You should definitely be looking at campaign finance reform and condorcet voting, then. Implementing a blind trust system for political donations would be a boon to third parties, since people would be more likely to donate to the parties they wanted to win, not the parties they hope will grant them favors after the election.

      The advantage to condorcet voting for third parties should be obvious.

      I think the simplest way to jump-start the alternative energy business would be for the government to buy several billion dollars of alternative infrastructure every year. Whatever generates the most energy per dollar spent.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    14. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I could definitely get behind that. Make everything transparent. All votes for/against/abstain/whatever get recorded and made public. All provisions slipped in are tagged with the name of the Senator/Representative who entered it. All holds on votes must be public as well. (See http://porkbusters.org/secrethold.php )

      Congress and the President are supposed to be working for *us*. If my boss were to ask what I did on a project and I answered "I can't tell you. It's a secret", I'd be fired. Congress should be forced to report to their bosses (the American People) just what they are doing in office.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    15. Re:My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would "I" do as President? Probably be assassinated for attempting to re-establish the constitution.

      Here is my top ten things for fixing the US government:

      1. Control corporations.
      In the 1890's when corporations were first devised, they were forbidden by law from participating in government. Somewhere along the line they purchased corrupt government officials and had the law changed. This law needs to be returned to its original wording, corporations should be beholden to local state governments, not the other way around.

      2. Get rid of lobbiests.
      Lobbiests serve no legitimate function in government, all they do is facilitate corruption. They will claim that organizations do not get government representation, but they are lying. Organizations are comprised of individual people and every citizen in that organization has a vote.

      3. Get rid of attachments to legislation (aka riders).
      If a bill is so weak, ill conceived, or reviled that it cannot stand on its own merits and must be attached to a "must pass" spending measure to have a snowballs chance, then it does not need to ever be introduced.

      4. All bills introduced in congress get a vote.
      No more will powerful people on sub-commities be allowed to sit on, kill or "table" bills in order to keep them from coming up for a vote. Likewise no filibustering will be allowed. No one man should be able to kill legislation, that is not democracy.

      5. All bills introduced need to be written in plain English so both law enforcement as well as the governed (i.e. the "common man") can easily understand them. Give the court system some leeway to determine if the letter of the law is being used to violate the spirit of the law.

      6. Don't write, introduce, and pass laws simply because you can. If parts of this law are already covered by another law, or if there is no real reason for a new law, then don't. The USA has more laws on the books then even communist dictatorships. This is mainly a control issue (if cops want to hassle someone there is doubtless a law they are violating). This should not be allowed.

      7. No more secret ballots.
      If a legislator is not voting the way the majority of his constituents want, then those constituents have a right to know. Full disclosure must be available at all times (especially before a re-election).

      8. Government must live within its means.
      The government must have a balanced budget. In case of a deficit, money must come from pork barrel projects first before essential social services such as police and fire are affected. All budget surpluses must be spent on paying off the national debt. Only once the national debt is completely payed off will additional entitlements be considered.

      9. Stiff penalties for corruption.
      Government officials found guilty of corruption should be banned from public office for a period of ten years, have 100% of their assets (bank accounts, properties, patents, etc) seized and forfeited. This is in addition to stiff jail sentences depending on the type of corruption they have been found guilty of.

      10. If corrupt government officials stash money in off-shore banks and flee the country to avoid #9 above. They should have a price put on their head high enough to attract every bounty hunter in the world.

  22. Private Federal Reserve by Platupous · · Score: 1, Funny

    The first thing I would do is eliminate the Private Federal Reserve and start a government owned and operated Central Bank. The idiocy that is our current system, does not support sustainability and virtually guarantees a boom bust cycle, a debt bound working middle class and a large percentage of people in poverty.

    This is all because of the international Banking Cartel and this can all be fixed with a Government controlled central bank.

    1. Re:Private Federal Reserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you one of those people who seriously believes that the Federal Reserve, which is wholly controlled by the US Government, is actually privately owned? I mean, a lot of people are confused about that, but you think you'd do a little research before speaking as if you knew what you were talking about.

    2. Re:Private Federal Reserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's funny, but there are people who not only think eliminating the Fed is a good idea but think it ought to be one of our top priorities. Which is not funny, but sad and a little scary. (Only a little scary because it's so far from being most people's top priority it has no chance of being put into effect).

    3. Re:Private Federal Reserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fully controlled by the US Government you say? The Fed's own freakin' website says that its board of directors represent commercial banks:

      http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri4.htm

      It sounds like you're the own who needs to do some research before spouting off.

    4. Re:Private Federal Reserve by Copid · · Score: 1

      The post you're responding to, while not totally accurate, isn't totally off base either. The Board of Governors consists of government appointees. The Federal Open Market Committee consists of the Board of Governors plus a minority of the presidents of individual Federal Reserve Banks. The government appointees outnumber the private industry appointees on the committee. The Federal Reserve Banks are subject to oversight by the Board of Governors, and they're non-profit entities. The whole system is a mix of public and private with a lot of public oversight and some private input. The idea that it's a private cabal of men printing money and making themselves rich is not an accurate picture of the system.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    5. Re:Private Federal Reserve by Platupous · · Score: 1

      Well now there is the issue. Education about our current monetary system is nil. We dont teach the basics. That this is so far off the radar does not change the fact that this is a major issue. It mearly shows that there is a major lack of education about these very important issues that would have a direct effect on the planets current debt market woes.

      Dennis Kucinich advocates this, so it is not so far off the radar as you might imagine.

      Also, what is so scary about incorporating the Fed into the treasury? The Fed is a private entity that the gov borrows money from. If it were a gov agency, we would not be borrowing money that is created by a private entity, but creating money within the gov itself, for use by the people not for use bu the private bankers.

      So please enlighten me as to why you think this idea is sad and scary. I am open to another point of view.

  23. If I was president of the USA by xtracto · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I would remove all frontiers (incoming of course) between Mexico and Canada. All immigration would be legal and people from all the world would be able to work.

    I would increase punishments for non native americans who commit crimes. If they commit a crime, everything they got in the USA will be confiscated, they will be added to a criminals database and they would be deported to their countries (I do not want to make taxpayers fund their prison terms).

    I would also bring all of the USA troops back home, all and everyone of them. And I will spend a lot of research and development funding on investigating ways to defend USA soil.

    ---

    Of course, given that I am not an american, I do not think my views are shared by most people here. but hey, not that it really matters what any of us think

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:If I was president of the USA by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      I would increase punishments for non native americans who commit crimes. If they commit a crime, everything they got in the USA will be confiscated, they will be added to a criminals database and they would be deported to their countries (I do not want to make taxpayers fund their prison terms).

      Wouldn't non-natives pay taxes? Will you do the same for their US-born children? So you intend to deprive non-natives of some of the rights natives have: have you thought out the caste system that well?

      And: Are taxpayers more comfortable paying for prison terms of other natives?

    2. Re:If I was president of the USA by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      You do realize that there are two ways to be a citizen of the United States right? You are either naturalized (you go through the process of becoming a citizen) or you are born here. If you are born here it doesn't matter if your parents are here illegally. So once one generation passed the US would have a gigantic population boom of citizens. This would dessimate the infrastructure of the country and lead to the collapse of many systems including emergency response, transportation, phone networks(the legacy ones not based on the Internet), and any government funded programs which costs skyrocket when the population of citizens does.

    3. Re:If I was president of the USA by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

      "So you intend to deprive non-natives of some of the rights natives have"

      You mean like voting and being elected President?

      It's already done now, stop pretending it's a "caste system" waiting to happen, you sound incredibly reactionary and moronic.

    4. Re:If I was president of the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they commit a crime, everything they got in the USA will be confiscated, they will be added to a criminals database and they would be deported to their countries (I do not want to make taxpayers fund their prison terms).

      OK, so some young American goes out traveling the world, finds love and eventually settles down in the USA with the foreign spouse. They raise a family, eventually save up enough for a house, put their kids through college but then - boom - the foreign spouse accidentally engages in some illegal parking and, according to your little scheme, gets deported. Sure, a family is torn apart, all kinds of complex bureaucracy is inflicted on all kinds of random people but, hey, at least you've sent those foreigners a message that they'd sure better not park illegally.

      Now, you could try to fix your little system by granting foreigners citizenship after a certain period of time but many foreign countries don't allow dual citizenship. That means that if our foreign spouse does get US citizenship then our foreign spouse will have all kinds of bureaucratic hassles trying to visit dying parents back in the foreign country.

    5. Re:If I was president of the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you think that gives a huge benefit to criminals?

      If I came from a country where my government really didn't care too much about their relationship with the states, I could, under your rule, come into your country and commit every heinous crime I could think of, with only two outcomes.

      Either A) I get away with it OR
      B) I get caught, and sent off home.. oh no! Which amounts to a slap on the wrist.

      Sounds like you've really thought through your actions. I doubt you would make office for a second term! ("He killed my whole family and now he's sunning himself on a beach in theyDontCareLand!")

      Also, with no border control and huge amount of people crossing the border daily, it wouldn't take much effort to get across and try my luck for a second time, worst case, I get my wrists slapped and sent home again.

      Keep working on it!

    6. Re:If I was president of the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would increase punishments for non native americans who commit crimes.

      I wonder if you actually meant what you said there, or whether it was just unintentional irony...

    7. Re:If I was president of the USA by STrinity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you'd apply laws differently to people based on national origin? I take the phrase "equal protection under the law" is unfamiliar to you?

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    8. Re:If I was president of the USA by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      I would increase punishments for non native americans who commit crimes. If they commit a crime, everything they got in the USA will be confiscated, they will be added to a criminals database and they would be deported to their countries (I do not want to make taxpayers fund their prison terms).

      And I would start a contract killing business. I would hire immigrants, telling them that they just had to come here, do one murder, and they would then be sent back home to live in peace, at which point I'd wire them their salary for the killing performed on US soil.

      Win-win!

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

  24. What would I do? by Sciros · · Score: 4, Funny

    Interns.

    --
    I like basketball!!1!
    1. Re:What would I do? by mathletics · · Score: 4, Funny

      Two interns at the same time?

    2. Re:What would I do? by PinkPanther · · Score: 1
      You mean, you'd hire Lou Dobbs?? Cool!

      ;-)

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    3. Re:What would I do? by Gigaflynn · · Score: 0

      yep

      --
      "Neo, follow the white rabbit"
      "Can i eat the white rabbit?"
      "No, there is no spoon to eat it with"
    4. Re:What would I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'd only be the president, not a millionaire.

    5. Re:What would I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chicks that double up on a dude like me do

    6. Re:What would I do? by kyjl · · Score: 1

      That's it? If you were elected as president, you'd do two interns at the same time?

      --
      Perl, n. A language spoken by Eskimos.
    7. Re:What would I do? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be president to have two interns at the same time.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    8. Re:What would I do? by BooRolla · · Score: 1

      I figure if I was a Millionaire ^W^W^W^W^W^W President I could hook that up.

    9. Re:What would I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "what?" not "who?"

    10. Re:What would I do? by Sciros · · Score: 1

      No, I'd do eight.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    11. Re:What would I do? by Thirdsin · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't be interns if i were president. They would all have fulltime "positions". IF, ya know what i mean!

      --
      No words of wisedom here.
    12. Re:What would I do? by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      What they give you a million dollars when you get elected?

  25. If I was President... by kellyb9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would wonder how I got a few million people to vote for me, despite the fact that I refused to be controlled by special interest groups.

    Oh nevermind, I'd never get elected.

    1. Re:If I was President... by pseudorand · · Score: 4, Funny

      > I would wonder how I got a few million people to vote for me, despite the fact that I refused to be controlled by special interest groups.

      Wonder, schmunder. Your pondering can be ended with one simple word: diebold.

    2. Re:If I was President... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who modded that comment "Funny" ?

      If I had mod points, I would had marked that as insightful. Why ?
      - Diebold machines are closed source, meaning no guarantee of the absence of backdoors
      - The man who founded Diebold was a known felon .. those who run it now may not be, but the root stays !!!
      - Look at all those Slashdot articles, bothering to RTFA .. you'll understand
      - These used to be a link between Diebold founders and the current (GW.B) administration & Company
      Btw, did you know that company means friends in French ? Surely the meaning got lost in time? Was it before or after that the US Constitution was abolished, along with the advent of Ever Longer Copyright Extensions (ELCE), and Ever Slimmer Privacy Rights (ESPR) ?

      Disclaimer, or "legal deathtrap" :
      Definitions :
      • "products" or "shit" : ELCE and ESPR, along with all the patents, copyrights and other legal deathtraps derived from them
      • "Legal entities" or "blobs" : individuals , groups, agencies, companies or other (stuff & combination of stuff) like that
      • "owner" or "bastards" : George Walker Bush, and the persons that gave him, directly or indirectly through less than 3 "blobs" (and knowingly) more that $100'000
      • "representatives" or "Sons of bitc*es" or "SoB" : any "blobs" that talks regularly in a Court of Law and turns Richer in the process, without having anything to do apart from reading some convoluted texts (produced & obfuscated by their peers) ... similar to Middle Ages's Witches, except that they do not produce any medecine, visionary insights, or simply original thoughts ...
      • "retaliation" or "fsck you" : carefull appication of "SoB" on a "blob" that we wish to weed out of existence
      • "retaliation" or "Hasta La Vista Baby" (alternate definition for people that do not have as of 2008 an US-stamped, biometrically-identified, GPS-tracked Pasport) : reckless application of Marines, Tomahawks (the 20'000 Kg version), Uranium-enriched munitions, Torture, and Shady Contractors to designated "blobs" and any other "blobs" that happen to live in the same country (or general area, provide that it doesnt involve US land, at least for the portion that "bastards" may one day visit)
      Claims :
      • Claim 1 : The "shit" and their various legal offsprings are the exclusive property of the "bastards"
      • Claim 2 : If any "blob" dares to speak of the "shit", the "bastards" will apply "retaliation" on them
      • Claim 3 : Any "blob" that still breathes after the application of "retaliation" will be stripped of his US passport, and be applied "retaliation" again ...
      • Claim 4 : As an alternative to being subjected to the enforcement of claims 2 and 3, any "blob" that know of the "shit" have to actively promote the adoption of the "shit", using "retaliation" if necessary (failure to do so, using any means, irrespectively of whatever their legal and/or constitutional status may be, may result in the application of any combination of claims 2 and 3)
      • Claim 5 : The application of any claim in this disclaimer is left at the option of "bastard", and any lack of application of some claim at some time does not restrict the Zeus-given right of the "bastard" to apply that claim (or any other), anytime in the future.
      • Claim 666 : This disclaimer is here only to protect & serve the American Way of Life. (this claim may or may not be restricted to the "bastard"'s way of Life only)
      Post Scriptum : I'm not even a lawyer, and not even an English native speaker, but with all those EULA lying around, their rhetorical torture of the English language permeates through me ... HELP ME !!!!
  26. I'd touch Batman's junk liberally by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 0

    See how he likes being on the receiving end. Bastard.

    --
    If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
  27. Two words by ProppaT · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your mom

    --
    Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
  28. Number One Thing by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Absolute number one thing, first day on the job: get a blowjob from a cuter intern than Monica, then post pics of it on MySpace. You know, just to get that out of the way.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Number One Thing by xSauronx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not me dude:

      Two chicks at the same time, man.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    2. Re:Number One Thing by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Absolute number one thing, first day on the job: get a blowjob from a cuter intern than Monica, then post pics of it on MySpace. You know, just to get that out of the way.

      You americans are so tediously moralistic, the French have their guy on an 'incentive' program. The more manifesto promises he makes, the more 'rewards'. Mitterand had four mistresses.

      I don't qualify under current law, but the first thing I would do is to look at how to make the current US problem in Iraq someone else's problem. Over the past five years Iraq has all but destroyed the US army. Whose army do we most want to destroy most (or care least about)? That would be Iran. So the US says to Iran 'your problem now', withdraw to Kuwait, see whether Iran prefers to have a festering civil war on its border or gets sucked in.

      Second foreign policy position: Cuba. Eliminate all sanctions with immediate effect. They have not worked in 40 years and it is obvious that they never will. It is equally obvious that the Cuban political system can hardly survive if there is a massive influx of capitalist spending. Close Gitmo while we are at it and sign a retroactive extradition treaty. Let those who committed torture face a criminal system that is no worse than the one they created themselves.

      Third position: Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden get a slotting. The US needs to withdraw from lost and irrelevant conflicts to concentrate resources on the conflicts that matter. Al Zawahiri has now had a major role in the murder of two US-friendly world leaders (Sadat, Bhutto). He cannot be allowed to survive. These problems cannot be dealt with by simply creating a bigger military, do that and some idiot neocons will come along and decide to use it for their own pet purposes.

      Fourth: halt the deficit spending program. Congress will not lower spending, under the GOP earmarks and spending exploded under the Democrats the difference is that spending is rising less quickly. The deficits are causing interest rates to soar, they are tipping the country into recession. The only way to reduce the deficit is for the country to live within its means and raise revenues. So unless you believe in the tax fairy the choice is between raising taxes and crashing the economy. Don't wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire, repeal them immediately and institute a 2% war tax. Time to remind people that deficit spending is merely a deferred tax rise.

      Fifth: comprehensive review of earmark projects, no-bid contracts and other potential graft. It appears that Haliburton and Blackwater owe the government rather a lot of money, we would like it back. Also Alaska can whistle if they think they are getting the idiot Stephens bridge to nowhere.

      Sixth: Implement measures to protect the Internet economy against Internet crime and the risk that terrorists use the Internet for fundraising. (Full program described in The dotCrime Manifesto.

      Seventh: New Orleans, remember?

      Eighth: Healthcare.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    3. Re:Number One Thing by Weh · · Score: 3

      The deficits are causing interest rates to soar, they are tipping the country into recession
      US interest rates are like what? 4-6% ? hardly what I call soaring. One of the main reasons the usa is heading for a recession is that the interest rates were/are so low, they made ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans too hard for financial institutions to resist and now they're stuck with the mess.
    4. Re:Number One Thing by eosp · · Score: 1

      Living in Alaska will teach you the following: that the Anchorage Bowl (the city and surrounding area) is packed. And getting more packed. And you can't go east because there are mountains there. You can't go south because there's water there. You can't go north because the military has it staked out. And you can't go west because there's water there. This bridge, however, would let you go west and expand the city more. It actually has a use.

    5. Re:Number One Thing by Rei · · Score: 1

      Living in Alaska will teach you the following: that the Anchorage Bowl (the city and surrounding area) is packed. And getting more packed. And you can't go east because there are mountains there. You can't go south because there's water there. You can't go north because the military has it staked out. And you can't go west because there's water there.

      You just described virtually every city in Japan.

      --
      Tonight's Special: Leg of Salmon
    6. Re:Number One Thing by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Living in Alaska will teach you the following: that the Anchorage Bowl (the city and surrounding area) is packed. And getting more packed. And you can't go east because there are mountains there. You can't go south because there's water there. You can't go north because the military has it staked out. And you can't go west because there's water there. This bridge, however, would let you go west and expand the city more. It actually has a use.

      That may be so. Why does that make it the best way for the Federal government to spend over a billion dollars?

      Government spending needs to be judged against a more accurate yardstick than which state happens to have the most powerful Senator with the largest mouth. The same money could have a much greater effect to a much larger number of people in much greater need down in New Orleans.

      Ted Stephens is not the sort of person you want to make such choices. His son is facing federal corruption charges. He is almost certainly facing charges himself after a contractor benefiting from his earmarks gifted him an extension of his house.

      Every earmark made by Ted Stephens should be put on hold. The Vecco relationship looks like a bribe smells like a bribe and should be considered a bribe unless and until proven otherwise.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    7. Re:Number One Thing by Copid · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a pretty useful bridge. Why, then, aren't the locals at all interested in paying for a reasonable part of it themselves?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    8. Re:Number One Thing by makapuf · · Score: 1

      the French have their guy on an 'incentive' program. The more manifesto promises he makes, the more 'rewards'. Mitterand had four mistresses. What complete BS ; I really hope you're not french (I am) and actually trolling.

      The thing is, people talk about supposed (or not) mistresses of the president, sure, for fun, of course we do. Then we talk politics, in a completely unrelated talk.

      The point of this is not "let's mix sex and politics", but the contrary : he's a grownup, and as long as his private life stays private, he can do what the fuck he wants to.
    9. Re:Number One Thing by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      US interest rates are like what? 4-6% ? hardly what I call soaring. One of the main reasons the usa is heading for a recession is that the interest rates were/are so low, they made ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans too hard for financial institutions to resist and now they're stuck with the mess.

      We have not hit the crunch point, yet, but we will if things continue as they are. The reason the dollar has dropped against the pound and the ECU is that the US is spending more than it earns. That means either higher inflation as import prices rise.

      Short term money is cheap, longer term money gets more expensive. It should be the other way round. The markets expect the price of money to rise.

      The fed keeps trying to drop rates, but they only set one rate. The rates paid by borrowers are much higher. The sub-prime market is not being driven by greed and carelessness, not mere desperation as you claim. The idea people got into their heads was that 90% of sub-prime loans could somehow be turned into AAA bonds at essentially zero cost (while charging sub-prime interest rates). It was the idea of the perpetual fee unch.

      The same idea fuels the deficit: Republicans say that you can cut taxes and revenues will rise, some even believe that. Others know its a crock but say it anyway because they are scared of the club for growth.

      Hands up, who would like to swap the Bush tax cuts for the Clinton economy? I would take that any day. Even though I am the type of person that the Bush tax cuts was meant to help.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    10. Re:Number One Thing by Stradivarius · · Score: 1

      But it wasn't private, not least because he decided to have his affair with a subordinate of his. People in the business world get fired for that sort of abuse of authority. And then he made it worse by lying to the court.

      Fundamentally, we should be able to expect basic decency from the person we elect to our highest office. And we should expect they'll uphold the laws they swore to protect.

    11. Re:Number One Thing by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact the first time (recently anyhow) it was stated that taxes should be cut to raise revenue (Reagan) taxes were lowered and revenue did rise. There is clearly such a thing as too much taxation for an economy (I suspect that value changes over time).

      As to the trade between the Clinton economy vs the Bush tax cuts. Which Clinton economy are we talking about, the one he had when he started (basically the end of the Reagan boom discussed above) or the one he had when he finished? (a shallow recession and a .com bubble in the process of bursting.) The answer to your question depends on that clarification.

      But don't let history get in the way of your rant, please continue.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Number One Thing by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      With regard to Cuba, sanctions were imposed because Cuba stole property belonging to people and corporations in the US. The purpose of the sanctions was to give Cuba the choice of returning (or paying for) the stolen property, or suffer the consequences. Cuba, or rather Castro, chose to suffer the consequences. So the sanctions have worked to punish Cuba, and the sanctions have weakened what would otherwise be a worse pain than it already is. Whether Castro has personally suffered on account of the sanctions is difficult to determine because it's not easy to determine what it is he actually wants.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Number One Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) I agree
      2) Sure, don't quite agree on the Gitmo idea, but removing the santions.. yes
      3)T he problem in you statement is the: "Create a bigger military." How are you going to do this? If 1 was achieved we would have a big enough military to deal with two people
      4) I'm not informed enough about this to say anything.
      5) See 4
      6) I read this as: "Make some laws that violate privacy" I am very much against that.
      7) I do and I don't care, it's a state matter, have fun Louisiana.
      8) Here's a big kicker! Healthcare, what are we to do about healthcare? Oh, I know, NOT what the Canadians or the UK is doing.. I like that plan. My plan is pretty simple, don't provide any. The government has no buisness giving out healthcare.
      9) Medicare - Oh, do you get the Axe? Oh, you do. Say good bye to one of the biggest drains on our economy.
      10) Social Security - I havn't forgotten about you. Bye bye. You arn't in the constution, you shouldn't be here.
      11) Public Schools - I have two proposed methods for dealing with the public school system. The first method: Disband them, they arn't supported in the constitution either. I don't really like that plan so here's another: voucher. Give all students a "school voucher" which is simply money they can spend on ANY School(Yes, even religious ones) they want to.
      12) War on Drugs - No such thing, legalize all drugs. Yea, sure, there will be a massive drug problem for a few years but once that subsides the drug black market will disappear, the jails will be 1/2 full, and we won't have such a gang problem
      13) Taxes - I propose exactly 3 taxes: 1)Citizenship taxes - This tax must be paid by every citizen in the U.S.(Wanna live here and be protected? Then pay the govt). 2) Capitalism Tax - Every item that one buys has a tax on it, and that's it. Kinda like a big sales tax. 3) Special Taxes - These taxes could only be used in times of crisis and would last no longer than 5 years
      14) Illegal Immigrants - You(as in illegal immigrants) people have absolutely NO RIGHTS. Gone is that dumb rule that if you kid was born here he/she was a citizen. If you want to gain citizenship, immigrate. Going back with health care and schools, if you can't prove you are a citizen you don't get any(except for maybe catastrophic health situations(car crash?) but as soon as you wake up, no green card? DEPORTED!)
      15) I'm sure I forgot some stuff, but I covered the major points: Healthcare, Schools, Social Security, Taxes, Drugs, Illegals..

      (Note, These actions of course have exceptions, I do take disabled people for example to be special cases with special needs.

      -Jones

      P.S. I'm sure my ideas have flaws, but I think they pretty much cover all that is wrong in our society, I didn't touch the military much or person freedom either but that's for another day

    14. Re:Number One Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear France,

      If you're wondering why the US economy is the largest in the world, and your's is roughly the size of a single state, California, please read the above.

      Best,
      America

      P.S. Thanks again for the Statue. Love it.

    15. Re:Number One Thing by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Lowering taxes can raise revenue although it may not always. a 100% tax rate would cause almost nobody to conduct taxable transactions which would mean revenue goes down. Lowering taxes to 0% would mean that you get no revenue on any transactions but people would conduct them much more freely. Finding the ideal balance is the important part. Dems usually think it is higher than what ever is current due to it sounds so simple. Raise taxes brings in more money. Dems being simple minded usually like it to sound or feel good. Repubs think it should be lower than whatever current tax rate is because it worked for Ronny. Lets lower taxes and then start a war, doesn't that sound like a great idea?

      It's still rather nice how great the US is, almost seemingly in spite of the politicians.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    16. Re:Number One Thing by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Two chicks at the same time, man.

      Nah, two chicks at the same time is old news.. Three is the new two, man.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    17. Re:Number One Thing by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Because that's not how the Federal Interstate program works.

      At least that'd be my guess.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    18. Re:Number One Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't qualify under current law, but the first thing I would do is to look at how to make the current US problem in Iraq someone else's problem. Over the past five years Iraq has all but destroyed the US army. Whose army do we most want to destroy most (or care least about)? That would be Iran. So the US says to Iran 'your problem now', withdraw to Kuwait, see whether Iran prefers to have a festering civil war on its border or gets sucked in.
      Listen to the French guy. Vietnam was solved by just giving the problem to the US.
    19. Re:Number One Thing by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Anchorage has a population density of 164.2/sq mi. New York City has a population density of 27,083/sq mi. San Francisco has a population density of 15,834/sq mi. Los Angeles has a population density of 8,205/sq mi. Seattle has a population density of 6,901/sq mi. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population density of 2,332.1/sq mi. Port Angeles, Washington has a population density of 347/sq mi. Even Nome has 279.7/sq mi. Exactly how far are you folks lowering the bar for "packed in"?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    20. Re:Number One Thing by vinlud · · Score: 1

      I don't qualify under current law, but the first thing I would do is to look at how to make the current US problem in Iraq someone else's problem. Over the past five years Iraq has all but destroyed the US army. Whose army do we most want to destroy most (or care least about)? That would be Iran. So the US says to Iran 'your problem now', withdraw to Kuwait, see whether Iran prefers to have a festering civil war on its border or gets sucked in.

      This is even worse policy then Bush did/does in his terms. So basically you say the solution to end a civil war is to create another one in a neigbouring country? I can see Iran having some influence in the current affairs, but no so much that it would justify burdening the normal, hard working, mostly non-fanatic, Iranian people with a (civil) war. Anyone doing something like this should be treated as a war criminal.

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
    21. Re:Number One Thing by 16Chapel · · Score: 1

      And two cups!

    22. Re:Number One Thing by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      This is even worse policy then Bush did/does in his terms. So basically you say the solution to end a civil war is to create another one in a neigbouring country? I can see Iran having some influence in the current affairs, but no so much that it would justify burdening the normal, hard working, mostly non-fanatic, Iranian people with a (civil) war. Anyone doing something like this should be treated as a war criminal.

      Iran asked for the Iraq war. Chalabi was their man in the 1990s. The Niger yellowcake documents were originally writen in Persian. The CIA identified Chalabi as an Iranian agent during the Clinton administration, that is why they rejected the Curveball intel (amongst many others).

      So far Iran has done rather nicely out of getting the US to start that war. They avoided a US attack themselves, they have established themselves as the regional super power.

      I don't think that Iran would fall into a civil war. But I do think that the country would be rather better off if the Revolutionary guard was otherwise occupied. The politics of Iran are somewhat complex, Ahmedinijad has managed something none of his predecessors did, he has effectively challenged the Supreme leader, the guard now effectively obeys him. Take a look at the series of attempted dressings down that have been handed out.

      Iran has more than enough men and materiel to keep Iraq under control. Their supply lines are 5000 miles shorter than the US supply lines. What they do not have is the ability to do that and maintain repression at home.

      Worst case looks considerably better for the US than a continued occupation. Best case is that the process causes the role of the Supreme Leader to be effectively negated and power to pass to the democratic process. That is the natural process, monarchies inevitably whither away with a democratic process in place.

      A shite super-state would be a concern for Israel of course. But like Iran, their politicians were all for starting the war. They should live with the consequences they caused.

      The alternative here is to do what Bush and Omert would like to do and start a war with Iran. They have been winding themselves up for it. Bush dismissed the NIE as contrary to his opinion - he is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. His opinion was wrong in Iraq, he has no credibility. He does however have the ability to start another war and get a lot of people killed. A war with Iran would probably result in tens of thousands of US casualties in the first few weeks. They certainly have the power to retaliate against US forces in Iraq, they have proved that they can sink Israeli ships, they can probably sink US warships. If any of the supercarriers was sunk the US would be immediately reduced from superpower to ordinary power.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    23. Re:Number One Thing by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      They have not worked in 40 years and it is obvious that they never will.
      Weird. For a second after I first read this, I thought that you were referring to Cubans, not to sanctions.

      All in all, a pretty good plan.
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  29. Experts by UnderDark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would get the EXPERTS on topics (Economy, Warfare, Science...) to tell me what the best course of action is (multiple, independent experts for sample size (exact size from stats experts)) and then act along those lines.

    1. Re:Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how many stats experts?

    2. Re:Experts by Brother+Seamus · · Score: 1

      I would get the EXPERTS on topics (Economy, Warfare, Science...) to tell me what the best course of action is...
      So, basically, you'd ask slashdot?
    3. Re:Experts by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I would do the same as you, ask the Experts and then do the exact opposite of what they would have said.

    4. Re:Experts by Keyboarder · · Score: 0

      Wasn't that the original purpose of the cabinet?

  30. What Would I Do? by The+Aethereal · · Score: 1

    What Would You Do As President? Nothing, besides veto damn-near everything.
  31. Two. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Two chicks at the same time.

  32. What would I do? by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    Nothing essentially. Actually better yet, I'd surround myself with people who actually knew what they were doing - not friends - not political appointments, just people who actually had a fundemental understanding of the problems facing this country.

  33. My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In no particular order:

    1. Legalize ALL drugs (this includes regulation and taxation. Want to end the illegal drug trade? This is the fastest way.)
    2. Require all able-bodied citizens between ages 18 and 35 (male and female) to undergo military bootcamp. This is NOT a draft however; after going through bootcamp, you are not required to serve in the military.
    3. Abolish the two-party system
    4. Erase all censorship from all media...This includes: Internet, Television, print, video games, music, etc.
    5. Build a border-spanning fence. Every 75 miles, have a reinforced entry way in which people are allowed through.
    6. Require that any immigrants that enter the US to be able to speak English prior to being granted citizenship.
    7. Allow high school students to pick all of their classes throughout their 4-year High School education.
    8. Allow all fifty states to have their say in gun ownership laws (I personally am for personal gun ownership.)
    9. Require application for parental certificates (the program would be known as "If you can't feed em, don't breed em". It would be based on the financial situation of the parents, as well as their mental well being and relationship status...i.e. do they constantly fight, or are they constantly in love, etc.)
    10. Legalize (and actively regulate) vigalante justice. (if everyone knows they can get their ass kicked by their gun toting neighbor, they are more likely to behave themselves)

    1. Re:My top 10 by nlitement · · Score: 1, Informative

      8. Allow all fifty states to have their say in gun ownership laws. That would be against the second amendment of the federal constitution.
    2. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 0, Troll

      It would also stop all this bullshit that people spew about gun control. I'm tired of all that.

      Besides, if Vigilante Justice is made legal, I assure you no state would be dumb enough to make guns illegal ;-)

    3. Re:My top 10 by EricWright · · Score: 2, Insightful

      9. Require application for parental certificates (the program would be known as "If you can't feed em, don't breed em". It would be based on the financial situation of the parents, as well as their mental well being and relationship status...i.e. do they constantly fight, or are they constantly in love, etc.) Because all pregnancies are planned, right? Or are you talking about forced abortions?
    4. Re:My top 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It must be nice to be 16

    5. Re:My top 10 by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      It would also stop all this bullshit that people spew about gun control. I'm tired of all that.

      Yeah... the Constitution is bullshit.

      Dumbass.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    6. Re:My top 10 by doombringerltx · · Score: 1

      We had a similar idea at the turn of the century with sterilizing criminals, the mental ill and retarded. It worked out well for us. So well that it was a major inspiration for The Final Solution in Germany. This "strip away one of the poor's most basic rights" sounds about on par with that. Sounds fun.

    7. Re:My top 10 by disckitty · · Score: 1

      I'm with you - or at least thinking it'd be an interesting idea - for 1, 2, 3 & 4. 5 is potential ecological disaster (migration of animal herds, etc). Then we get to 6, and all my respect for you goes out the window. Same for 7. You ask that people speak English, but there are many students who are still failing horribly at the language in their high school years. 8, 9 are fine, but there may be unexpected repercussions to 10. My 2 cents.

    8. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have clarified. This would be for planned pregnancies (think of it as a centralized extension of planned parenthood) Abortion would still be legal in it's present state.

    9. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      5 is indeed a potential ecological disaster, something that I honestly hadn't considered.

      6 is meant to learn English to the point of being able to have a short conversation with someone, or give them directions, or not have a language barrier at your job. I wouldn't expect to be allowed to become a citizen of a country if I didn't know that country's language, and I would expect nothing less of my own country.

      As far as choosing classes in high school, your concerns could be addressed very easily. My fiance is a teacher. Quite frequently, I hear stories of other teachers that have problematic students, be it in behaviour or learning. Have all public schools teach the same thing (as it roughly is now), however allow each individual teacher to teach it to their class as they see fit. I'm a politician, they are a teacher. I think they would be more qualified in knowing how to talk to their own students than I would be.

      As far as 10 goes...potential reprocutions are huge...likely, murder would skyrocket at first. People would figure it out though. Once your neighbor realizes you could legally kick his ass for stealing your car, he is much less likely to steal your car.

    10. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Parts of it are, yes. As Gallagher once so succinctly put it

      "We hold these truths to be self evident (and federally taxable). All men are created equal (just in different tax brackets)"

    11. Re:My top 10 by doombringerltx · · Score: 1

      So if I get rejected for the license to have a planned child then I can just "accidentally" have one?

    12. Re:My top 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well lets all thank god you never get elected. That entire "free country" thing would go to hell.

      2. Would severly damage american spirits and thinking. Bootcamp is designed to make you think a certain way. Norway has required military bootcamp/service and I have yet to meet a free thinking norwiegan man. The rest are all fucking stupid. Are you sixteen??

    13. Re:My top 10 by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      My personal thought upon reading the GP's post was 'Norplant or equivalent for all!'.

      No reversals unless you get the permit.

      Though honestly enough, we don't need it. Even the USA is barely above replacement.

      Hmmm... Large tax breaks for 'worthy' parents...

      Heck, I'm an Evil Overlord. I'll go for it.

      That and change the name of the DoD back to Department of War, rename homeland security to Department of Defense. Oh yeah, and kick the UN out.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:My top 10 by barzok · · Score: 1

      Legalize ALL drugs (this includes regulation and taxation. Want to end the illegal drug trade? This is the fastest way.)


      Once something has been approved by the Government, It's no longer immoral.
    15. Re:My top 10 by nasor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realize that it was "president," not "dictator," right? The president can't just order laws changed. Good luck convincing congress to sign off on any of that.

    16. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      yes...yes you can. It would be illegal, but ::shrug:: whatever :-)

    17. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      No, I'm a 23 year old who believes that being pushed to the limit physically and mentally makes you a stronger person all around.

    18. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I have never thought that drug use was immoral. I do however think that raiding medical marijuana clinics, burning hemp fields, and treating weekend users like terrorists is immoral.

      If alcohol is legal, "drugs" should be legal as well. After all, alcohol kills more people every year than every illicit drug combined.

      Also, police raids kill more illicit drug users every year than all illicit drugs combined.

    19. Re:My top 10 by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Legalize ALL drugs (this includes regulation and taxation. Want to end the illegal drug trade? This is the fastest way.)

      "Fastest"? That's an odd way to spell "only".

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    20. Re:My top 10 by NaCh0 · · Score: 1

      The ecological disaster of a border fence doesn't matter at this point. The 10s of millions of people who have trampled the native lands already destroyed the habitat. I've been near the border in Arizona and can tell you first hand the vegetation is destroyed and there is garbage as far as you can see. (empty bottles, plastic bags, discarded clothing, thousands of cuts of carpet to hide footprints) If the fence was constructed today, it will take mother nature at least 100 years to repair the damage caused by the illegal crossings.

    21. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Yeah, spelling was never my best subject ;-)

    22. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I know that...these are some of the changes I would propose though.

      It's my dream world, let me fill it with the dreams that I want to :-)

    23. Re:My top 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm a 23 year old who believes that being pushed to the limit physically and mentally makes you a stronger person all around."

      No, it makes you a brainwashed idiot who is unable to think for yourself. I can tell that just by trying to talk to any US Marine.

      This mandatory boot camp idea will only be good for idiots who think they can choose all of their own high-school classes.

    24. Re:My top 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is quite an interesting mix of crackpot left-wing and crackpot right-wing ideas

    25. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      OK, so you don't include all of the brainwashing inherint in military bootcamp...you only include the physical training.

      Forgive me for not thinking this through enough to put make it to the floor for debate...I was just stating what I would do. Sorry if I didn't make it detailed enough to be a bestseller.

    26. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      That's because I'm a crackpot middle-body :-)

      In all seriousness though, this does reflect my own personal beliefs...if you were to gauge where on the scale I am, you would find me right smack in the middle. A little from column A, a little from column B...

    27. Re:My top 10 by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's what the US needs, more stoned gun-toting nationalists...

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    28. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I have met MANY stoners in my short life...many of those that I have met have been met from traveling across the country. There is one thing that I can say about stoners that makes them some of the best people in the world: they are simple to satisfy, they are deep thinkers, and they are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

      To paraphrase Grandpa Ganja:

      "To the layperson, a stoner is always just sort of staring out into space. Inside that stoner brain, however, is a swirling torrent of questions that would make most people's head explode. A stoner is never staring off into space: he is constantly questioning it."

    29. Re:My top 10 by STrinity · · Score: 1

      2. Require all able-bodied citizens between ages 18 and 35 (male and female) to undergo military bootcamp. This is NOT a draft however; after going through bootcamp, you are not required to serve in the military.
      Well, there goes the Amish, Quaker, and Menonite vote.

      3. Abolish the two-party system 4. Erase all censorship from all media...This includes: Internet, Television, print, video games, music, etc.
      Your platform isn't very consistent. First you want to repeal the First Amendment and it's protection for freedom of association, and then you want to increase First Amendment protection for speech.

      9. Require application for parental certificates (the program would be known as "If you can't feed em, don't breed em". It would be based on the financial situation of the parents, as well as their mental well being and relationship status...i.e. do they constantly fight, or are they constantly in love, etc.)
      Because eugenics programs are a proven good idea!

      10. Legalize (and actively regulate) vigalante justice. (if everyone knows they can get their ass kicked by their gun toting neighbor, they are more likely to behave themselves)
      Legalized lynchmobs, now that's true democracy.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    30. Re:My top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Never said I was going to run, this are the things I would push for if I DID run.

      Of course, now you see why I'm a stoner/gamer with a 9 to 5 instead ;-)

    31. Re:My top 10 by kramulous · · Score: 1

      ... I have yet to meet a free thinking norwiegan man. Ouch! So I'm guessing that those talented Norwiegans that I've meet at uni were not actually so. Let alone not seeing any obese ones. I think that a bootcamp would be excellent for a nation with the highest obesity world rate. You need discipline in all facits of modern life. Would the economy be in better shape if people had a little more discipline? That someone could exercise "Do I really need that item?"

      I used to be against a mandatory "National Service" but not anymore. I don't mean that if a war breaks out, you have to go fight. Only those in the military for a career would go. For the rest, it is about mateship, bonding, understanding and health. I don't think you can be turned into a robot that easily. People are free thinkers.
      --
      .
    32. Re:My top 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >My fiance is a teacher.
      >potential reprocutions are huge

      Maybe you should ask for tutoring?

    33. Re:My top 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No, it makes you a brainwashed idiot who is unable to think for yourself. I can tell that just by trying to talk to any US Marine.
      >This mandatory boot camp idea will only be good for idiots who think they can choose all of their own high-school classes.

      Leave the guy alone, will you? He's 23, probably quite sincere, and thinks he knows what's best
      for everyone - don't you remember when you were young, naive and so certain you knew how to fix all the problems of the world?

      It doesn't last - let him enjoy it while he can.

    34. Re:My top 10 by barzok · · Score: 1

      Somebody missed the Simpsons joke.

    35. Re:My top 10 by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      In no particular order:
      4. Erase all censorship from all media...This includes: Internet, Television, print, video games, music, etc. The intent is noble, but censorship starts at auto-censorship and goes all the way up through editorial choice and on to laws. You couldn't stop it all even if you were king of the world.

      You also need to control some forms speech, such as sales speech: You need laws that require truth in advertising, because if you don't, crooks will poison the public in get rich quick schemes at an appalling rate.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    36. Re:My top 10 by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      You realize that it was "president," not "dictator," right? The president can't just order laws changed. Good luck convincing congress to sign off on any of that. Well, according to the present president, the president of Pakistan believes in democracy.
      Considering that this was said after he sacked the supreme court, suspended the constitution, ordered a national curfew and had thousands of opponents jailed, he can reasonably believe that a president wields supreme autocratic power ;-)
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    37. Re:My top 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > You realize that it was "president," not "dictator," right? The president can't just order laws changed. Good luck convincing congress to sign off on any of that.

      What country do you live in? You're obviously unfamiliar with how America works.

    38. Re:My top 10 by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      potential reprocutions are huge...likely, murder would skyrocket at first. People would figure it out though.

      "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind."

      History teaches us *repeatedly* that this doesn't work. It's the natural first idea that any civilization has when starting their society (including the US). People don't figure it out. At least, not the way you seem to think. What they end up doing is establishing a justice system to heavily regulate the usage of violence.

      Societies that keeping this for long stretches end up degenerating over the course of a generation into anarchy (i.e., everyone fights for basic food/shelter/family, and no one has much of any of them) before moving into tribalism/clans where the regulation of violence by government begins again.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    39. Re:My top 10 by ultranova · · Score: 1

      As far as 10 goes...potential reprocutions are huge...likely, murder would skyrocket at first. People would figure it out though.

      They did. Why do you think we have a legal system with an exclusive right to punish criminals ?

      Once your neighbor realizes you could legally kick his ass for stealing your car, he is much less likely to steal your car.

      What, do you think he's going to just take it like a good little sheep ? No, he'll get his gang, friends and family to help defend himself. This, of course, prompts you to do likewise. Congratulations, you now have a small civil war on your hands.

      One would imagine this to be quite obvious, especially with all the historical examples of blood feuds.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    40. Re:My top 10 by uncqual · · Score: 1
      Although I'd like for the Second Amendment to be binding on the states as well, I don't think it is right now.

      IIRC, the Nine Unelected Black Robed Legislators have not yet applied the incorporation doctrine to the Second Amendment (most of the other rights in the BoR have received this blessing of course).

      There's also that nasty little debate about "Individual" vs. "Collective Rights" views of the Second Amendment - if (the largely discredited) Collective Rights view managed to prevail or persist, the States would be able to do pretty much whatever they wanted WRT gun ownership laws.

      Hopefully both these issues will be resolved in the coming years. Unfortunately, my guess is that the SCOTUS will issue a narrow ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and largely skirt the crux of the Individual vs. Collective rights issue this term rather than addressing it squarely.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  34. bio-fuels and nuke plants by fifedrum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    3 year plan to institute a nation-wide algae based bio fuel farming and processing industry modeled after the rural farming unions and co-ops that drive our dairy industry. That is, anyone with the open land could create an algae farm with free seed algae from the gubermint, and cheap loans to build the infrastructure. Every so many days a truck from your local co-op fuel depot would pull up, siphon off your fuel and bring it to the distribution center, where the locals could then buy the fuel for their cars/trucks. Figure 250,000 fuel growing tanks, 1 acre each providing all the fuel the nation needs.

    3 year plan to create thousands of small community owned pebble bed reactors situated in every army, marine, national guard and air-force armory in the nation. The reactors are small, the armories are (should be anyway) well guarded, so they do double-duty as power stations.

    write huge incentive cheques to small inventors for producing commercially viable diesel electric hybrid cars running on the above two fuel sources.

    Once those are in place, remove the IRS and current tax law, replace with a 3% flat tax. The huge increase in GDP caused by the above two will more than offset the taxes lost through the current corrupt system.

    Jail many lawyers, politicians. Use them to feed the algae from #1 above.

  35. Re:legislate to hem in the power of the exec branc by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

    The checks and balances are already there, they just need to be enforced.

  36. Oh, what fun by gorbachev · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1. Befriend a whole bunch of rich folks
    2. Do the whole "small Government" thing
    3. Move out of the country and resign (in that order, to make sure I'd be able to escape)
    4. Watch and laugh as the whole country (well, not quite the whole country, just the poor and middle class people) slowly plummets into chaos
    5. Call a few of those rick folks I made friends with
    6. Profit!!

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  37. Healthcare by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    To promote better healthcare I would start a new insurance company run either by the government or by a non-profit organization under charter from the government. This insurance agency would provide Health Insurance AT COST to anybody in all 50 states who wanted to pay for it. This would force real competition within the health insurance industry.

  38. Honest answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Put SCIENCE back in the classroom.

    Tax religions like any other business.

    Put people before corporations. (I love Capitalism but we've denigrated to Corporatism)

    Move the US to metric. :)

    1. Re:Honest answer. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Put SCIENCE back in the classroom.

      When was science not in the classroom? The jackasses in Kansas got booted out in the next election. I went to school in the south, and in the biology class the teacher introducing evolution had a line that went something like, "Some people, me included, believe in a divine creation of the world in 6 days. You don't have to believe the theory of evolution. But you have to learn the scientific theory of it and understand the evidence for it." End of discussion of creationism.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Honest answer. by hxftw · · Score: 1

      Not *all* religions are out to make money.

      --
      Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right.
    3. Re:Honest answer. by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Move the US to metric. :) My .338 Arctic Warface Magnum won't like that!


      (Oh, if only I actually had one, there'd be nary a squirrel left in the city. . .)
      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  39. Languages for Everyone by spike_gran · · Score: 1

    As president, I'd require every state to teach a second language through all of school and at state-funded universities. That language would be the same for every person in each state. The second language would be something that would unite the people of the state, give a local identity, and help global interaction.

    First, we would try to be good neighbors. California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas would teach Spanish, because of the proximity to Mexico. Maine, New York, and Pennsylvania would teach French because of Quebec, and Louisiana would teach French because of history.

    Then, we would try to keep some of our native heritage. Hawaii would teach Hawaiian. North and South Dakota would teach Dakota. Oklahoma would teach, say, Cherokee. Alaska would teach some Inuit language.

    Some state would pick up American Sign Language. And then the rest of the states would choose some language off the top 20.

    1. Re:Languages for Everyone by maxume · · Score: 1

      Insanely expensive. Also, there are several different heritages in places like Alaska; your plan would end up homogenizing them.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  40. Well this would end badly... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

    The president is not god or a dictator or an emperor. He has power but much of his power it seems comes from connections, friends and the job holder's well trained skills at politics. I have no desire to gain such skills (that'd require me to cut out any remaining ethics and morals) and I have no illusions I am even capable of gaining them (much less doing so while in the fire). Hell I suck at dealing with people especially when I'm on the spot so it'd be worse than even for the average person.

    More than likely I'd start abusing any power I actually had, due to my lack of having such powers, so things would go downhill even faster. The end result would be that my subordinates would try to bypass me, my advisers would try to hoard power and lei to me, no one would do what I wanted to them (beyond direct orders) and congress would hate me. I'd of course hate the job as well so I'd have almost no desire to dedicate myself to it especially since I'd likely see it as pointless.

    I guess my only hope for salvaging something from such a debacle is that I'd have some nice looking interns. Actually that brings up the whole abusing power things so, yeah, things would go badly.

  41. I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    End male circumcision.

  42. Cornholio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make the streets flow with the blood of the non-believers!

  43. List in order by nondisclosure007 · · Score: 2, Informative

    1. fund the creation of MagLev wind turbines (google it) and solar cells based on what Konerka (again, google it) is doing in that arena.
    2. There has got to be a better battery technology than what is in use today. If we could get the wind and solar to the point of creating 250% of what we use, then we can store the extra for night-time use (and when the wind isn't blowing). Under current wind and solar technology this is just technically impossible. Thus see number 1.
    3. Once you have the battery question solved (along w/ the wind and solar in place); switch all non-heavy-duty vehicles over to electric w/ the new battery and smaller versions of the MagLev turbine. So they charge when they're being driven.

    enough about energy.

    4. abolish the Federal Reserve. It was setup illegally; it's a private bank. Did you know, for every dollar that the Federal Reserve prints, it charges the US gov't $1 + interest? over 90% of the US govt debt is owed to this private bank. And why? Because the US doesn't regulate it's own currency. Countries in the world w/ no debt, like say Russia, print and maintain their own currency. I'm just saying.
    5. Then w/ all that in place; bring home every last soldier. They don't need to be anywhere but here, guarding OUR borders, not someone else's.

    Screw the IRS! They're just the "heavy" for the private bank. 'No taxation w/out representation' my @$$.

    1. Re:List in order by RingDev · · Score: 1

      4. abolish the Federal Reserve. It was setup illegally; it's a private bank. Did you know, for every dollar that the Federal Reserve prints, it charges the US gov't $1 + interest? over 90% of the US govt debt is owed to this private bank. And why? Because the US doesn't regulate it's own currency. Countries in the world w/ no debt, like say Russia, print and maintain their own currency. I'm just saying. I'd like to see where your numbers came from. Last I saw almost 1/2 of our national public debt is held by central banks of foreign countries (Japan and China being the two largest investors). And I'm pretty sure the total public debt makes up significantly more than 10% of all national debt.

      -Rick
      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:List in order by nondisclosure007 · · Score: 1

      GAO (General Accounting Office). I'd like to see where your numbers are coming from.

    3. Re:List in order by RingDev · · Score: 1
      From the GAO website:

      As of September 30, 2007 and 2006, federal debt managed by the bureau totaled about $8,993 billion and $8,493 billion, respectively, for moneys borrowed to fund the federal government's operations. As shown on the Schedules of Federal Debt, these balances consisted of approximately (1) $5,049 billion as of September 30, 2007, and $4,843 billion as of September 30, 2006, of debt held by the public and about (2) $3,944 billion as of September 30, 2007, and $3,650 billion as of September 30, 2006, of intragovernmental debt holdings. So, for 2k7, of the $8.9 trillion debt the US had, $5 trillion was owned by the public (ie: the government's loans to itself you described as being 90%), and $3.9 trillion was held by investment programs.

      Also from the GAO:

      According to amounts reported in the September 2007 Treasury Bulletin, Treasury estimates that the amount of Treasury securities held by foreign and international investors has increased $837 billion, from $1,383 as of June 30, 2003, to $2,220 billion as of June 30, 2007. As of June 30, 2007, this represents an estimated 45 percent of debt held by the public That means that of our nations $9 trillion debt, about a quarter of it is owned by foreign nations.

      -Rick
      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    4. Re:List in order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      switch all non-heavy-duty vehicles over to electric w/ the new battery and smaller versions of the MagLev turbine. So they charge when they're being driven.

      The president of the USA may well be powerful, but I don't think he's powerful enough to be able to create perpetual motion machines. Please consider what you are proposing here. Wind turbines generate electricity from the kinetic energy of the wind. Any energy captured in this way is going to increase drag, requiring your engines to work harder; in other words, you are just sucking the energy from your own engine, albeit in a really inefficient manner.

    5. Re:List in order by Copid · · Score: 1

      GAO (General Accounting Office). I'd like to see where your numbers are coming from.
      Link, please. I flatly don't believe that the GAO says anything of the sort. Just looking at some of the Fed's numbers doesn't give any indication that what you claim is true. Everything I've been able to find says that foreign ownership accounts for about half of our outstanding government debt, and of the government debt that is held by government entities, most of it is held by trust funds. Generally, when I hear a claim like yours, it's usually connected to a post that badly misunderstands how the Federal Reserve system works, so color me skeptical.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  44. Couldn't do it. by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

    I don't have the skills to be president. Now, if you changed the question to "What would you do as King?", well, then we could talk.

    --
    And the worms ate into his brain.
    1. Re:Couldn't do it. by techpawn · · Score: 2, Funny

      "What would you do as King?"

      It's good ta be da King!

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  45. I will serve with all my heart... by Ared · · Score: 1

    being president is the hardest job you can have, it takes lots of responsibility but it also a job which give you more happiness if you serve honestly and humility because of the many people you can help and serve as well...

    --
    http://tvlands.blogspot.com
  46. Tsiangkun 2012 by Tsiangkun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) I will repeal corporate personhood.

    2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.

    3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.

    4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here".

    5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.

    1. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1) I will repeal corporate personhood.

      2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.

      3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.

      4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here".

      5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.


      Excellent start, here's a few more if I may add to your list:

      6) Introduce and pass a bill eliminating campaign contributions once and for all. Also ensure that any elected public official gives up the right to privacy of their financial information. Pass strict laws (including jail terms) for politicians who take bribes from interest groups.

      7) Abolish the electoral college system. Create a new system in which No president can be elected without at least 60% of the popular vote. Perhaps allow voters to choose their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4rth, and so on choice. Use weighted averaging to determine which candidate is most popular.

      8) Completely re-write copyright and patent law. Reduce copyright terms to 5 years, place far greater weight on prior art. If a "one-click" type patent can be proved identical to an algorithm written in 1975 in some obscure computer science textbook then that patent is immediately and irrevocably dissolved.

      9) Federalize technologies like these and dramatically increase funding for alternative energy technologies. Create awards and grants that provide generous wealth incentives for innovators.

      10) Legalize file-sharing and constitutionally equate it to freedom of speech, write net-neutrality into law. Clean sweep of the FCC and recreate it as a body which exists solely for the promotion of faster, more reliable, ubiquitous communication services to individual citizens.

      11) In the same way Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System; fund and build a massive fiber layout to solve the last mile problem once and for all. Include provisions for alternative solutions like wireless hubs and repeaters. Portion a federal budget for the continuous maintenance of this network.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    2. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I wonder if your second point will cause massive grade inflation. What a fucking moron, it's a good thing you will never be President.

      If I were President, I would have people like you deported.

    3. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      1) I will repeal corporate personhood.
      1) That's probably a good idea but it might be hard. I would just concentrate more on limiting it's rights and holding individuals within the corporation more accountable.

      2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.
      2) Your intentions are noble but we already have a progressive tax system. Taxing the top 5% more will not be easily passed. Paying back school loans for students with a GPA higher then 3.2 will only lead to grade inflation( something that already happens at the most prestigious schools).

      3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.
      3)They didn't do anything wrong. You can argue that the race should have gone the other way but it wasn't their fault. The fraud that did happen was perpetrated by other people; not the Supreme Court.

      Your last two points might work.
    4. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Surt · · Score: 1

      I believe what you're searching for with #7 is Condorcet voting.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by agm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1) I will repeal corporate personhood.

      2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs. As a libertarian I would dispise such a change. I'd reduce tax drastically and make it flat - everyone pays the same amount. I would introduce a complete user-pays system for everything - including education, roading. I would remove the consept of a pension - people should save for themselves.

      3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.

      4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here".

      5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments. It's not the taxpayers responsibility to fund disaster recovery efforts. A compassionate community should be able to do that without needing to have the government confiscate our property from us (in the form of taxes).
    6. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by sconeu · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) I will repeal corporate personhood.

      Good idea, but requires legislation.


      2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.


      Requires legislation. You can have your pet congressman introduce legislation to do so.

      3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime.

      a) Sovereign Immunity
      b) Someone else has pointed out that the fraud (if any) was not the USSC's fault, and someone had to cut the Gordian Knot.

      4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here".

      a) Requires legislation (see 1 and 2).
      b) Who is "anyone"?
      c) Define "negotiating table"

      5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.

      Again, requires legislation. Congress has the power of the purse.


      6) Introduce and pass a bill eliminating campaign contributions once and for all. Also ensure that any elected public official gives up the right to privacy of their financial information. Pass strict laws (including jail terms) for politicians who take bribes from interest groups.


      Good luck getting that past the inevitable court challenge.


      7) Abolish the electoral college system. Create a new system in which No president can be elected without at least 60% of the popular vote. Perhaps allow voters to choose their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4rth, and so on choice. Use weighted averaging to determine which candidate is most popular.

      Damn near impossible. Requires a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that. Let me know 40 years from now how you did.

      8) Completely re-write copyright and patent law. Reduce copyright terms to 5 years, place far greater weight on prior art. If a "one-click" type patent can be proved identical to an algorithm written in 1975 in some obscure computer science textbook then that patent is immediately and irrevocably dissolved.

      a) Requires legislation. Copyright is explicitly listed as a Congressional power.
      b) Puts us in violation of the Berne Convention, which according to Article VI of the Constitution is co-equal with laws passed by Congress.


      9) Federalize technologies like these and dramatically increase funding for alternative energy technologies. Create awards and grants that provide generous wealth incentives for innovators.

      You were planning on paying/compensating the "owners" of such technologies, weren't you? Or do you also think that the Constitution (specifically Amendment 5) is just a piece of paper.

      10) Legalize file-sharing and constitutionally equate it to freedom of speech, write net-neutrality into law. Clean sweep of the FCC and recreate it as a body which exists solely for the promotion of faster, more reliable, ubiquitous communication services to individual citizens.

      a) The first part requires legislation and then a Constitutional Amendment (your words, not mine).
      b) The second is doable, but may require legislation, depending on the charter of the FCC as currently legislated by Congress.

      11) In the same way Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System; fund and build a massive fiber layout to solve the last mile problem once and for all. Include provisions for alternative solutions like wireless hubs and repeaters. Portion a federal budget for the continuous maintenance of this network.

      Again, requires legislation. As I said before, Congress has the power of the purse, NOT the president.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by tthomas48 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's not the taxpayers responsibility to fund disaster recovery efforts. A compassionate community should be able to do that without needing to have the government confiscate our property from us (in the form of taxes)."

      Do you really think if this was true that we'd have government? War and disaster are the two main reasons governments are created. Both, because the community cannot absorb these kinds of shocks. Who would have been the compassionate community with the ability to help fund disaster relief efforts in the case of Katrina? Neighbors who also don't have houses? Random individual contributions?

      Once you start organizing a way for a community to provide services such as disaster relief, you're creating government.

    8. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      I can respect that we have philosophical differences as to the role of government. I believe we concede a lot of our freedoms in exchange for services and safety.

    9. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by labnet · · Score: 1

      1) I will repeal corporate personhood. Bad Idea. Running a business is hard work, and 99% of business people I know are more honest than your average Joe. The whole point LTD or LLC is to encourage individuals to take calculated risks without putting at risk their entire personal wealth. Without LLC, there would be a lot less business & less employment.
      If you have spent 20years building up a business, then one crappy event destroys it all, including your home, why would people bother with the risk? Note there are still dire consequences for company directors that commit criminal acts.
      --
      46137
    10. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Charcharodon · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Number 1 I like. Corporations should be businesses only.

      Number 2 I like, except for the college loan reimbursement, well at least not all college degree programs. Hard sciences, medicine, engineering sure. Fluff degrees no. There would also be a national service requirement as well, yep that's right boys and girls time to join the Army. In otherwords there is no so such thing as a free lunch.

      Number 3 is silly, the rules are the rules, don't get mad because he won on a technicality, and that the average Voter has a the same IQ as the number of holes he punched in the ballot. I do agree a little with the terrorist regime. We shouldn't attack any other country unless they are a valid, as in more people are going to die than people manage to do to themselves with home appliances in a year, honest to God threat. Once the threat is determined it should be eliminated without discusions, negotiations, economic sanctions, UN resolutions, Shock and Awe, Occupation, or Nation Building. Turn the whole place into a glass parking lot and get back to our own affairs. Once people realize we meen business there'll be far less nonsense coming from petty regimes that can handle things in their own backyards.

      Number 4 yes, I agree, accept it would be called the Department of We are going to Remove your Ass from the Face of the Earth, as it should be, not some feel good title like "Defense". If you manage to provoke us enough that we call these guys, people should be very affraid, and the aftermath should be something that would make even the Devil cringe.

      Number 5. We I think if you meen by reparations as in a sucker punch in the face or a wack in the head with a stick then yes, reparations all around. Stupid people should never be rewarded for doing stupid things, like living BELOW sea level and then actually having the nerve to bitch about a little rain. By the same token all the government officials that let this go on for as long as it did, the building zoning below sea level part, not FEMA (FEMA actually did what was called by their charter, it wasn't their fault that people at the City and State level had their head up their collective asses.), should be hauled off to prison, one perferedly built in the 9th ward, so they can experience first hand "What no real evacuation plan in effect" means.

    11. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really genius? How do you plan on paying for all that?

    12. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Except it says what would you do if elected as president. Not what would you do if you were elected to replace the entirety of Congress.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    13. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.

      It's not the taxpayers responsibility to fund disaster recovery efforts. A compassionate community should be able to do that without needing to have the government confiscate our property from us (in the form of taxes).


      That might be the case under your administration, but it was not the case under the government in power at the time of the disaster. If those people were owed reparations, it needs to be determined under the framework of laws that was in place at the time.

      Tangentially, I think your compassionate community idea really doesn't work when the entire community is destroyed in the disaster. Some disasters are just too big to be handled locally.

    14. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between making corporations be legally independent entities (for liability, financial and other reasons), and making them legally "persons" under the law. Nobody is suggesting abolishing corporations, just that they don't need free speech and such.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    15. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by tarogue · · Score: 1

      2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.

      Last time I checked, income tax accounted for only 15% of the Fed's income. How about knocking 15% off of the budget and eliminating the income tax completely?

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    16. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

      "3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush"

      If you ever wonder why everyone you've ever spoken to thinks you're a flaming idiot, revisit this statement for all the evidence you'll need.

    17. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which illustrates the problem of being President.

      People think the President can do anything. But in fact the office of the President does not have the power to any of the things listed here, not without cooperation from other parts of the government, or in case of #3, a grand jury (which you are not allowed to stack with partisans).

      Ideas for solving problems are nearly useless to a President. What a President has to do is frame problems. People have to accept that (a) a problem exists and (b) it is just the way you characterize it. Expecting to get your way on (c) [this is what we're going to do about it!] is excessively optimistic.

      So, you have backtrack on your solutions to defining the problem in a way that is politically attractive and leads to the kinds of solutions you favor.

      1) "I will repeal corporate personhood." -- "Corporations are using their personhood status to meddle in politics, which is not what it is for."

      2) "I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth ..." -- "The problem with giving big tax breaks to the wealthiest people is that it doesn't work like it might have in the past. In an era of globalization, putting more capital in the hands of the ultrawealthy is that it can and does go overseas to make people who compete with American workers more productive."

      3) "Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime." -- "Government is acting as if it is above the law, and institutions that should be politically neutral have become tools of party and in some cases personal interests."

      4) "Establish a department of peace..." -- "We're asking the taxpayers to give tons of money for national security, but we're spending it in ways that make the country less secure."

      5) "Reparations for the victims of hurricane katrina who were failed by their governments." -- "It's been three years since since Katrina, and we still haven't been able to marshal an effective response. We can't wait anymore for some bureaucratic program, we need to do something immediately that will make a difference right away."

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by CodeBuster · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Hmmm...lets review your positions here shall we?

      I will repeal corporate personhood. Return to feudalism...check

      I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs. Why stop there? what else should the government be providing? They do such a wonderful job of spending YOUR money efficiently for you so why not just run everything that way? It is not possible to re-distribute wealth, it has been tried and it just doesn't work. You will only succeed in distributing an equal portion of misery to everyone.

      Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime. Sounds like a purge. I hear that the Soviets were fond of those.

      Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here". Spoken like someone who hasn't seen much of the world. There are people out there who would rather kill us or die trying and they would only "negotiate" if they thought that it would give them a short term tactical advantage (i.e. they would negotiate in bad faith) or cause us to ease off the pressure for a while. We negotiate where we can, but sometimes we need the sword as well. Negotiation with the sword to back it up is meaningless.

      Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments. Reparations imply that someone was at fault, so unless you are going to blame Bush for the weather it doesn't make sense to talk about reparations. People choose to build their houses in flood plains or live in low lying areas, nobody forced them to live there. How is it the fault of the rest of us when the inevitable storm comes through and wipes them out? There are plenty of other places in the United States to live besides the coasts, pick one and move there or else don't complain when you have to rebuild your house in the same bad location every few years. Why should the rest of us have to pay for that?

      If you run then remind me to vote for the other guy.
    19. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by epine · · Score: 1

      LLC is perfectly sensible business arrangement. Incorporation in Delaware, however, is stacking the deck. I would do something about Delaware acting as an offshore bank for corporations wishing to escape liability.

      The main thing America requires right now is a firm brake on extreme wealth disparity, which is tremendously corrosive to civil society. Restore the inheritance tax, and do something about the nature of corporate board rooms that leads to ludicrously inflated executive pay. We are talking about America, aren't we? Land of opportunity or overdressed carpet-baggers?

      I would post the estimated growth of the national GDP of China through to 2030 on my office wall.

      I would suspend tax exempt status to creationist organizations. To pound the nail deeper into that coffin, for K12 I would scrap history, geography and social studies and replace them all with a combined program in media studies and critical thinking authored by Sut Jhally, Noam Chomsky and the deceased Richard Feynman.

      I would ban advertising targeted at children under the age of six, and advertising to children under the age of 15 in any place they can't legally choose not to attend (such as their school). That would clean up the walls and cafeterias. If teenagers wish to sell their bodies as corporate billboards, feel free, it's your life, slut for Nike if you wish to. Bribes to the school board to accomplish the same thing, no chance.

      I would mandate standardized UPC codes for all retail food products which can be entered into manufacturer web pages to obtain extended health information. I would require grocery stores to produce an aggregate summary of nutritional information for the grocery purchase as a whole. This would be phased in over a period of time, to allow update of their systems. I would require (or encourage through incentives) far more disclosure on food origins.

      There is no sane reason in modern society to deprive consumers of choice information. The power of consumer choice is what business exists to satisfy, but business decides this is too difficult, and takes the easy way out.

      I would encourage increases in electricity and consumer oil prices, but phased in at a steady rate, established as much as possible ahead of time. We still don't price energy anywhere close to its marginal cost. Bad price signals, bad results. With the extra taxes on energy, eliminate frictional taxes elsewhere.

      I would task the FDA to come up with a vastly cheaper drug approval process for highly targeted drugs (e.g. Herceptin) and change the liability associated with these drugs so that the patient assumes more risk. More drugs would become available to treat more diseases, at lower prices. More people helped, higher initial risk. Each highly targeted drugs would be taken by vastly fewer people who don't benefit from it (yet still experience all the side effects and potentially dangerous drug interactions). I would try to squeeze out all forms of medication taken by large populations not proven to benefit. I'm not talking about a 10% reduction in cholesterol averaged over 100,000 people. There's a good chance more than half of those people benefit not at all, and that all the benefit comes from the half which does. It's stupid to have millions of people taking potentially dangerous drugs who aren't benefiting, because some benefit was measured in aggregate over a test population.

      The correct model is this: if you have gene G or protein P, you take the drug targeted at gene G or protein P.

      I wouldn't eliminate asymmetrical broadband, but I would force the providers to offer a choice at the same price: do you want the fast side to point up or down? Maybe the providers would decide symmetrical wasn't so difficult after all. Or maybe not.

      I would rewrite the constitution such that any future copyright term extension could not constitutionally be applied retroactively. If possible, I'd kill that damn mouse much sooner than that.

      I would also repeal protectionist software lumber tariffs. As a Canadian president of the United States, that's the least I could do.

    20. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by agm · · Score: 1

      ...and once you start confiscating people's property to fund such services, you're diluting property rights and removing freedom.

      IMO Government exists to provide and ensure those freedoms. And that's all they should do. Everything else should and can be done by a compassionate *free* community.

    21. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by agm · · Score: 1

      My complaint with the current system is that we have given away too many of our freedoms. For a free society government should be minimal, and should exist purely to ensure our freedoms. And nothing else.

    22. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by agm · · Score: 1

      Tangentially, I think your compassionate community idea really doesn't work when the entire community is destroyed in the
      disaster. Some disasters are just too big to be handled locally. I suppose that depends on your notion of "community". I see as as being bigger that a town, a city a state or even a country. And if the global community is destroyed then we're all pretty much screwed anyway.
    23. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      Um, in case you haven't been paying attention, executive power is on the rise.

      Bush has rendered congress irrelevant, I'm just extrapolating to the future.

    24. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      There is nothing stopping states from making a pact to give their electoral votes to the most popular candidate.

      To get rid of the electoral college would require a change in the constitution, and the people who have the power aren't going to be too interested in such a change.

    25. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      I agree with your statement, we have conceded too many freedoms, and government is way too big.

      However, I believe social programs act as safety nets for society, providing a way for people to avoid turning to crime, and thus are essential to protecting the freedoms of the population.

    26. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by dbIII · · Score: 1

      People think the President can do anything

      The problem here is that you are thinking in terms of a constitutional Republic. When you have a move towards an authoritarian monarchy instead with a King that doesn't follow the former constitution things change a lot. Thankfully the support base would drop to zero if there is an attempt to go beyond term limits. If any idiot tried you would have a General in charge within a week and hopefully an elected leader soon after.

    27. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...lets review your positions here shall we?

      I will repeal corporate personhood.
      Return to feudalism...check

      Care to explain that one? How is removing the artificial personhood of a corporation a return to fedualism?
      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    28. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's Slashdot. Either they're raging Ron Paul megalibertarians who have never heard of human nature, or hemp-obsessed lefties who think the whole world would be perfect if you just took money from everybody who had it and let them run things.

    29. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by agm · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is any ethical justification is removing some of our freedoms in order to ensure other freedoms. Freedom doesn't work like that - it's not a zero sum game.

    30. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      Like I said, I respect that we disagree on what a government is supposed to be philosophically. I see government as a treaty ideally. (FWIW, I think what we have now in the US of A is more like a hostage situation, which is why I frequently refer to my government as a foreign government)

      In a world of complete unrestricted freedom, one can only possess that which they can defend. In order to advance as a society, we trade some of our freedoms in exchange for protection from threats domestic and foreign, and infrastructure that no individual could build and defend on their own.

      I believe rampant poverty, ignorance, and violence are domestic threats from which I believe the government is obligated to protect its population.

    31. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      2)...reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.

      You're kidding about the college reimbursement right? Hell, why not go all the way and nationalize it. It seems to have worked for our public education system...NOT...

      You have children, you own up to your parental responsibilities. Don't tax me because your little broodlings. If you don't want children, then have your tubes tied. This "It takes a village" socialist mentality will be the death of America. What we need more of is personal responsibility. This includes everything from raising your family to managing your own debt.

      3) Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime

      Great way to start a civil war. Which means you'll need a...

      4) Establish a department of peace

      We have one, and so does every other super power on Earth. It's called the "Military". When you have a strong military, no sane/rational nation will do you harm. Those that do you harm, we solve the issue through passification. Weapons being the method of choice, of course.

      5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.

      We have, and still continue to do so. What do we get in return? An increase in crime in our major outer laying cities (Houston, TX for example) Gee, thanks guys. You're welcome anytime.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    32. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by samantha · · Score: 1

      Dude, the top 5% already pay most of the tax. Haven't you noticed that the government, those doing the taxing, wastes most of the tax and put us in the hole for generations to come to boot? How what makes your plan do anything but redistribute wealth to bureaucrats and their buds just like now?

    33. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      What an ignorant thing to say. A government is created for many reasons. Dealing with disaster recovery is way down on the list. Individual contributions for Katrina relief were HUGE. And they went to actually helping people, not giving everyone a $2000 credit card so they can go gamble with it. When you tell people the government will do everything for them, you take away any motivation for them to help themselves. Parts of Mississippi got hit just as hard as New Orleans, but the residents there didn't wait for and rely on government to do everything for them.

    34. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Individual contributions went to who? Non-profits. Which are highly regulated, have governance boards, and procedures for handing out money. Sounds like the government. Don't know why you're so keen on private government with little to no accountability to the public over public government.

  47. Top 3 by stinerman · · Score: 1

    First, I'd work with congress on ending the practice of gerrymandering and on ending discriminatory ballot access laws, which I think are the biggest threat the republic.
    Second, I'd withdraw from the Berne Convention and ask congress to pass sane copyright laws.
    Third, I'd remove all our troops from the following countries:

    Kenya, Egypt, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, all European countries, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Cuba, Columbia, and Iraq.

  48. Steal the Heart of Gold? by bpfinn · · Score: 1

    I'd look for Magrathea.

  49. If I Were President... by kilo_foxtrot84 · · Score: 1

    ...I'd plan on having a four-year term.

    How much time in every first-term presidency is spent trying to get a second term? How much time is wasted on the campaign trail that could be put to use in other, more constructive manners?

    As for my actual agenda... while keeping in mind that politics is a two level game and international concerns must continue to receive support, I would do my best to support domestic initiatives, particularly education. I'd also make darn sure I had some good advisors, because I know I don't have all the answers.

    1. Re:If I Were President... by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      Work only gets done every-other-year in Washington anyways because 1/3 of the Senate is campaigning for reelection and the whole House is running for reelection. Never mind that the roles of the Senate and the House have swapped since in the inception of the Constitution. Originally, members of the Senate was supposed to have longer political lives than members of the House (hence the term-life of 6 years instead of 2 years.) However, there is neigh a political position (other than a Supreme Court Justice) that has a longer political life than being a member of the House (which has a rediculously high incumbancy rate.)

  50. The World is my Country by zyzzx0 · · Score: 1

    1) I would implement an ad campaign entitled "The World is my Country, it's people my Countrymen," pushing my press secretary to repeat it every day.
    2) I would create a department of peace.
    3) I would truly invest in alternative energy by pushing congress to spend $40Billion on a new energy infrastructure, giving grants to businesses who create wind and solar farms, and businesses who are near the completion of high capacity batteries and capacitors.
    4) I would cut back on military spending, investing in education, research, the department of peace and alternative energy progress.

  51. I'll tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First: Two chicks @ the same time... and if I were elected president, I think I could hook that up.

    Second: Nuke the middle east. All of it. even our friends

    Third: Attempt to legalize every illegal drug. Declare the war on drugs over.

    Fourth: End the Patriot Act, DMCA, etc.

    Fifth: Disband the DHS & IRS.

    Sixth: Declare Martial Law and let the hilarity ensue.

  52. Be Boring by wsherman · · Score: 1

    A good government is a boring government. A good government gets the basics rights and makes decisions on the basis of impartial analysis of factual observation (not gut feelings and radical ideology).

    The basics:

    • Don't violate human rights or civil rights.
    • Abide by the basic tenets of international law.
    • Balance the budget (and pay down the debt).

    The details:

    • Use technology to enable (informed) input from general population to establish (and maintain) collective goals.
    • Enact policies to achieve the collective goals based of impartial analysis of factual observations.
    • If sufficient factual observations are not available then implement policies on an experimental basis in order collect sufficient information to decide on more permanent policies.

    The bottom line is that, if I was president, it wouldn't be about what I wanted - it would be about what the people wanted. It wouldn't be about what I (and my "gut") thought would work to achieve - it would be about what an impartial analysis of factual observations thought would work.

  53. This is easy... by slashname3 · · Score: 1

    Initiate a 15 year plan to move the U.S. from a gasoline based transportation infrastructure to a hydrogen fuel cell based infrastructure. This would require building a number of nuclear plants to generate the hydrogen as well as supply the power for new factories to support the new infrastructure. Oil companies would be mandated to assist with the conversion as well as automobile manufacturers to create vehicles in all classes trucks, buses, SUV, sedans, etc that run on fuel cells.

    This would generate jobs as well as get the economy moving again.

    I would also start the process of pulling all U.S. troops from overseas assignments. The only way U.S. troops would remain overseas is if the host country paid us for the protection. The extraction of troops from Iraq would be prefaced on getting the Iraqi military up to speed to handle their own internal issues.

    There would be a brief foray into Pakistan to finally capture/confirm dead Bin Laden. After that they would be on their own.

    A set of security measures would be implemented to protect against ballistic missiles as well as scanning all cargo vessels interring out waters for nuclear or biological weapons.

    A very simple tax plan would be implemented, 10% no deductions. This would put more money in the hands of the people that earned it which would stimulate the economy.

    1. Re:This is easy... by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      Initiate a 15 year plan to move the U.S. from a gasoline based transportation infrastructure to a hydrogen fuel cell based infrastructure. This would require building a number of nuclear plants to generate the hydrogen as well as supply the power for new factories to support the new infrastructure.

      Hydrogen is too hard to make, too hard to move, and too hard to store. Battery technology is already approaching practicality for automotive use. It's far more efficient to just use electricity than try to build a hydrogen distribution system. There'd be less up-front investment, and less wasted energy once it was in place. A hydrogen fuel cell has about 25% grid-to-motor efficiency. Batteries are around 86%. There's a bit of rebalancing from the extra battery weight, but I doubt it's enough to consume 3x the energy.

      Oil companies would be mandated to assist with the conversion as well as automobile manufacturers to create vehicles in all classes trucks, buses, SUV, sedans, etc that run on fuel cells.

      Or we could just let them all work on the electrics they're already working on. Hell, even ExxonMobil is already working on battery technology (they know peak oil is coming/here, and want to sell the plastics that go into the things).

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
  54. Heart of Gold by laejoh · · Score: 0

    Well, steal a starship ofcourse!

  55. HOW IS THIS NEWS FOR NERDS?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus Christ, Slashdot has really jumped the shark with the introduction of the politics section.

      It's more like a fifth grade civics class than ever before with this lame ask slashdot question.

  56. The usual stuff by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    Crush the lesser races, conquer the world, unimaginable power, unlimited rice pudding, et cetera, et cetera.

  57. That's easy by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 5, Funny

    Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

  58. Might as well... by kallisti777 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Consider this a platform, since I'll be 35 fairly soon.

    1. Use our armed forces for national defense, not the world's police
    2. Divert savings from needless wars into balancing the budget and paying down the debt
    3. Reverse laws that punish victimless crimes and legislate personal morality
    4. Pardon and release non-violent drug offenders to help with prison overcrowding
    5. Revise the tax code to bring fairness and relief to the working/middle classes

    Since it doesn't look like Dr. Paul will get the nomination, vote me in 2016... if we're still here.

    --
    Vanya's Law: "In any culture without irony, fart jokes will be the highest form of humor."
    1. Re:Might as well... by blaster151 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'd vote for you.

    2. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. Reverse laws that punish victimless crimes and legislate personal morality So you want to punish personal morality and legislate victimless crimes? Sorry, couldn't resist. I like all of your points, except maybe #5 since "fairness" is subjective and our tax system is already progressive.
    3. Re:Might as well... by Gigaflynn · · Score: 0

      sir, you have my vote (except I'm British, ah well...)

      --
      "Neo, follow the white rabbit"
      "Can i eat the white rabbit?"
      "No, there is no spoon to eat it with"
    4. Re:Might as well... by querist · · Score: 1

      If I may comment on #4, I would like to suggest a slightly different approach, one that I have seen work quite well.

      I worked for a short time as an "administrator" in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections. During my "watch", so to speak, we implemented a special facility for exactly those inmates mentioned in your point #4 - non-violent drug offenders. These were people whose only crimes were directly related to their substance abuse.

      These people were given mandatory treatment (that is, NA/AA groups, etc) and were kept away from the "regular" criminals. The result: Less than 1% repeat offence rate.

      Please, help them. There is a model in Massachusetts that worked very well about 20 years ago when I was there.

      If I'm still a US citizen in 2016, i'll watch out for your platform. You'll get my vote (especially if you consider my "ammendment" to your point #4.)

      -Q

    5. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem with legalising drugs is you end up with a lot of people on drugs. Then your regime loses power because it doesn't have enough people not on drugs, and then your regime gets toppled by a more powerful one. I think taking steps in one way or another to prevent the spread of drugs that infringe people's free choice is the only to maintain a regime.

    6. Re:Might as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Who would be the world's police then? Are you saying that function is not needed?
      2. What, you are going to budget for wars every year, THEN use that money for something else?
      3. What is a victimless crime, stealing my toaster?
      4. Non violent means what, I didn't hit you when I took your toaster?
      5. Taxes, finally, ONE out of 5.

      It was in another post, but "stop doing things to make people fly planes into our buildings" would suit you too.
      Now, that only means converting to Sharia law. NO PROBLEM.

    7. Re:Might as well... by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      1. Use our armed forces for national defense, not the world's police We tried that before, during WW1. Not getting involved early cost us dearly.
      Do you wait for wildfires to get to a modest size before you decide to start fighting them?
      Now I'm not saying that we're doing the right thing now in Iraq, however to let Saddam go free after invading Kuwait sends the wrong message to every other 2 bit dictator around the world. The fact that the US might get involved in a war acts as a deterrent to those that might start one.
      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
  59. Power to People! by sciop101 · · Score: 1
    1. Abolish Department of Homeland Security.

    2. Abolish Transportation Security Agency.

    3. Deport illegal aliens.

    4. Enforce border.

    5. Develop trustworthy voting.

    Encourage voting & public involvement in civic affairs.

    --
    The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
  60. Grand scale and vision by Liquidrage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every election is the same thing. Candidates with speech writers talk the talk of "at home" issues. They can almost never do anything about it because "at home" issues are mostly local issues. Outside of coming up with a way to tax more more, and going to war, Washington doesn't do much for me. When the fed cuts rates or raises them, that impacts me at home. Most of the at home issues they don't belong in anyways.

    But what ever happened to thinking big. Last time we thought big was the 60's I guess and the space race. We're a large country, I want a large project. One that inspires us (try putting a price on inspiration), and that becomes a legacy for an entire generation. One whose impact will last for decades.

    I would love to see some grand project. Lunar colony (not in 20 years, but like, let's start doing it now). New space vehicle. Particle accelerator bigger then anything on the drawing board today. Something. Anything that inspires us and improves the planet.

    1. Re:Grand scale and vision by shadowcabbit · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. If there ever was a day I wished I had mod points, this would be it.

      Our society is at its best when we are unified in the effort to obtain a common, grand, superfluously spectacular goal. Hell, humans as a species are at their peak when working in concert. There's a reason we're called the "United" Stated, y'know.

      The only thing I would add would be to outlaw political parties, which (IMO) only serve to create artificial divisions among the One Nation Under (Whatever). That might be infeasible, so I would say that a political party can only exist for a specific amount of time and specifically for a single candidate-- basically, change their role to throw their entire support behind a single candidate.

      (In one of those twists of coincidence, TMBG's "I Should Be Allowed To Think" just came up on shuffle.)

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    2. Re:Grand scale and vision by Surt · · Score: 1

      Energy independence (via any green energy) seems like the obvious candidate big project for our generation. Massive benefits: better productivity, more reliable transportation, reduced air quality health hazards, decentralization, etc, and that really is just the short list of the biggest benefits. Not even universal health care is likely to confer as many tangible benefits to the next generation (not that there's any legit reason we can't afford to do both). Personally, I plan to do my part as soon as I can afford it, with or without the government helping.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Grand scale and vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what ever happened to thinking big ... I want a large project. One that ... becomes a legacy for an entire generation. One whose impact will last for decades.

      Ummm, hate to break it to you, kid, but that'd be Iraq. Ever hear of PNAC? See, Dubya (and his gut) did think big - very big. They up and decided that transforming the Middle East through military conquest was the Apollo of our generation - our legacy, if you will.

      The thing is, you can't just have some mediocre leader pull some random project out of ... the air and have everyone get all inspired. Myself, I could really get all inspired by a project to solve the world energy shortage - but that kind of project wouldn't exactly inspire the SUV driving folks who happen to know that global warming is all a dirty hippie librul conspiracy.

      You go ahead and find a project that is so inspiring that it makes people want to up and part with their hard-earned tax dollars, and then we'll talk. Until them, you keep your "large projects" to yourself.

    4. Re:Grand scale and vision by Liquidrage · · Score: 0, Troll

      This kid is mid 30's with an actual kid. Your attitude is so trite. You'll like so many of the people. You cast off other's as "SUV driving folk" yet you come off as that person in this regards. Great leaders lead. A great president could easily get a major project approved by the people and congress. Hell, as of NOW we spend billions and billions on special tech projects. What is lacking is a great direction and unity of purpose.

      But hey, don't let your cynical ass down. Keep your aspirations of meagerness alive. You and the rest of your kind are doing a great job so far.

  61. My List by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    1) Create a balanced budget over next four years.
    2) Insist China float its currency, or stop trade.
    3) Withdrawal of troops over four years. The immediate pullout is insane, even through we truly have no business being in Iraq in the first place.
    4) National Health Insurance. Having companies in charge of your benefits makes no sense.
    5) Seriously fund head start.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:My list by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      ...but before all that I would of course bang an intern or two then brag about it at the next press conference.

    2. Re:My list by rampant+poodle · · Score: 1

      I may not agree with each and every facet of your platform. However -- you have my vote!

  62. I know! by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That smokin' hot deaf chick on West Wing.

    Oh, I thought you asked "who."

    Let's see, what would I do as president? I think the speech would go a little something like this.

    "Hey, folks, you know how they say there's nothing that gets an economy moving like a war? Let's consider that for a moment. We're talking about uniting the entire nation behind one goal. We're talking about reordering the economy to meet this goal, every working man and woman either directly engaging in the mission or serving in a supporting role. We train the flower of our youth, equip them with our treasure and send them thousands and thousands of miles away to foreign lands, all this effort just to drop a bomb in someone's lap. Could you imagine going to this sort of effort to give that same guy a helping hand, rebuild a house, provide a hot meal or maybe just a cold beer? It's laughable! And what a sad joke we are as a species that we feel this way.

    "So, what's on the agenda for the next four years? We're going to go to war. Not any of this silly war on drugs and terror nonsense, much more effective than the war on poverty. No, we're going to war on business as usual, the way we've always been doing things. We spend $500 billion on the military and what we have to show for it is worth maybe a tenth of that number. Our nation has lost its leading role in science and industry. The solution to these problems is not just throwing money at 'em, the solution is to use that money intelligently.

    "It's a simple truth that centralized organizations are among the most efficient forms of human effort we've ever seen. The Soviet Union's economy fell apart because bureaucrats in Moscow tried to make decisions on how business on the other side of the empire should be conducted. The former genius of the capitalist system was the decentralization of authority to the periphery of the economy, let the businesses make decisions on what they need to produce and how to do it. Efficient organizations succeed, inefficient ones are allowed to fail, their capital and employees and resources free to be used by more efficient enterprises. Folks, the consolidation we're seeing with today's megacorporations is simply a repeat of the Soviet folly. And the growing wasteful bureaucracy in Washington is no better.

    "Government needs to concentrate on what government does best in a 21st century nation-state. Such duties include providing for the common defense, making treaties with foreign powers, providing regulation and inspection of private enterprise to ensure those organizations operate in the public interest, national health care and retirement funds, and conducting basic research in the sciences.

    "Government is not to be a piggy bank for special interests to raid. It is not a cash cow to be tapped by connected contractors who have made big donations to politicians. To that end, all political campaigns will be publicly funded. Anyone money recieved from outside the election funding system will be seen as a bribe and the criminal penalties will follow from that."

    That's just a few thoughts I had off the cuff. I would assume if I ever were president and tried to say something like that, I'd be taken aside into a smoke-filled room and shown that film of the Kennedy assassination, but shot from a view I've never seen before, a view that looks like it's from the Grassy Knoll. "Any questions?"*

    *With apologies to Bill Hicks.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:I know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one responded to this?

      Well, just so you know, you got my vote.

      Brandon

    2. Re:I know! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      It's a simple truth that centralized organizations are among the most efficient forms of human effort we've ever seen. The Soviet Union's economy fell apart because bureaucrats in Moscow tried to make decisions on how business on the other side of the empire should be conducted. I think my brain just tried to crawl out through one ear. Putting those two sentences makes no sense, whatsoever.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:I know! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      It's a simple truth that centralized organizations are among the most inefficient forms of human effort we've ever seen. The Soviet Union's economy fell apart because bureaucrats in Moscow tried to make decisions on how business on the other side of the empire should be conducted.

      I think my brain just tried to crawl out through one ear. Putting those two sentences makes no sense, whatsoever. Yeah, I realized that after I posted. I think I mentally corrected the word when I reviewed it before posting and I think most people reading through did the same. Alas, Slashdot is a cruel mistress who demands we post correctly the first time. That and Taco must be too lazy to implement features common in web forums since, oh, I don't know, 1996?
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  63. immigration first, then taxes by alta · · Score: 1

    I think a fence is unrealistic. I think the way to do it is stiff sanctions on companies hiring illegals. And check, check often and check more often. If illegals are found, fine the company and arrest the illegals. Send them packing. When the companies are no longer offering them jobs, then they'll stop coming.

    And to further that, I'd nix this universal healthcare crap. Do they realize that it is going to compound the immigration problem immensely! Sounds good to be nice to everyone, but it's about as practical as that damn fence. Not to mention, I'm not working my ass off so someone who doesn't work can go to the emergency room to get a painkiller every time they have a hangnail.

    Then I'd get rid of the thing that says if you have a baby here, you get to stay.

    Once we stop the flow, then we work on sending back that ones that aren't here legally. THEN if we still have a problem, I'd think about a fence.
    Internationally I'd be pushing to get out of Iraq soon, but that means, 'get 'er done' as soon as possible, not 'Get out at all costs'

    I know this isn't going to make me popular around here, but it's my honest answer to the question.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  64. Here goes... by jpatters · · Score: 2, Informative

    My first act after being sworn in would be to bring all US troops home from Iraq.

    My second act would be to issue a presidential pardon for all non-violent drug offenders.

    My legislative priorities, assuming like-minded people have been also been elected to the House and Senate, would be:
    1) The end of the War on Some Drugs. The money currently spent on that would go toward drug treatment, see item 3 below.
    2) Repeal of the DMCA, and systematic reform of the copyright, trademark and patent laws. Copyright would be an initial term of five years, renewable for one additional term of five years, with an open format preservation requirement for the renewal. The scope of what is protected by trademark law would be substantially narrowed. Software patents would be kaput.
    3) A single payer comprehensive national health care plan. Neither employers, nor university presidents would be permitted access to people's medical records.
    4) The current tax code would be scrapped, and replaced by a simple progressive income tax with no loopholes. I am also open to using a national sales tax with a progressive, income sensitive prebate program.
    5) Immigrants who want to come to the US for a better life would be welcome, without quotas or limits, even if they have darker skin than me or speak a different language.
    6) New education standards, with a heavy emphasis on math and science. Schools receiving federal funds would be prohibited from having ID as part of the science curriculum, and would be required to have as much resources put into arts, music and such as are put into sports.

    --
    "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    1. Re:Here goes... by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      2) Repeal of the DMCA, and systematic reform of the copyright, trademark and patent laws. Copyright would be an initial term of five years, renewable for one additional term of five years, with an open format preservation requirement for the renewal. The scope of what is protected by trademark law would be substantially narrowed. Software patents would be kaput.
      You've got my vote right there. Oh, your already elected so you don't need my vote till next term. But you'd get it then if i was allowed to vote in the US (but i'm not!)

  65. I have some detailed plans for my run.... by crhylove · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...when I'm eligible in 2012:

    1. Have a camera and public feed of me at all times, as a true servant of the people.
    2. Remove all surveillance cameras and traffic cameras.
    3. Fiber to every home and free national internet.
    4. No more war unless we are directly under attack.
    5. Solar Power.
    6. Break up the corporate monopolies.
    7. Free the radio and television spectrums for public use.
    8. Give the public the truth about JFK and Roswell and 9/11 (I'm not saying I know what it is, but as president, I would, right?).
    9. Completely restore the constitution.
    10. Go back to the Gold standard.
    11. Eliminate the current credit card system.
    12. National Health Care
    13. Make copyright last no longer than 5 years, for any design or art.
    14. Fix our defunct education system (something along the lines of OLPC/wikipedia).
    15. Invest more in NASA.
    16. Move from airplanes to a slower, cheaper, safer, more environmentally friendly zeppelin system.
    17. Expand the peace corp.
    18. Give every American a free cellular video phone.
    19. Lock up all the criminals currently in power.
    20. Repair our international relations with every country not actively involved in a genocide.
    21. Give incentives for electric vehicles, like the Tesla Motor Car.

    I have a few other goals, and I think they are actually realistic. Some will be harder than others, obviously. A lot of money will be saved over the current system as we are eliminating much of the corporate profiteering (health insurance, cellular companies, internet providers, cable companies), and by implementing a superior video phone infrastructure, there will be less need to travel or commute. Plus, once the solar infrastructure is all in place, it will be much cheaper to maintain than our current oil based infrastructure. After all the ground work is done I'd like to focus on safer and healthier food, quality of life, and mental health issues, as well as an improved food pyramid that reflects more of the true benefits of eating higher quantities of hormone free meat, and chemical free vegetables and fruit. There is plenty of evidence showing that the current food pyramid is dead wrong.

    I'd also like it if as an aptitude test for graduating high school, kids could build a simple radio, fix a car, perform CPR, write a basic software application, and read music on at least one instrument. I also think reading, writing, and arithmetic are important, but we should be farther along by now.

    Another area of research we should invest more in is automated vehicles. The traffic and mortality rates here in southern California are pretty atrocious. My carbon-fiber solar powered zeppelin designs could go a long way to assisting in this endeavor as well.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  66. Make sure laws are enforced by techpawn · · Score: 1

    President is head of the EXECUTIVE branch. Aside from appoint people to positions and try to influence legislation they do nothing more than sign paperwork, ensure that laws are being enforced and try to keep us out of military trouble.

    People make all these broad claims about what they'll do as president. What about "surround myself with people who know what to do in the role in which they are placed and make sure my pencil is sharp"? The Congress makes laws, the courts make sure they don't go against the law of the land. All I would be doing is make sure things are running smoothly.

    Much like a Senor SysAdmin?

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  67. Heres what I would do by Doug52392 · · Score: 0

    1. Eliminate the RIAA

    2. Create a new governmental agency called the Federal Lawsuit Agency, whose job would be to go through all the pending lawsuits, and make sure stupid and pointless ones don't get to court.

    3. Actually _listen_ to what Americans wants

    4. Eliminate the Federal Income Tax

    5. Limit the power of capitalist companies with way too much power (eg. Microsoft, Comcast).

    6. End the war in Iraq

    7. Write network neutrality into the United States Constitution.

    8. Ban warrantless wiretapping, and make providing wiretaps a $1 million per person fine towards ISPs.

    9. Lower health care costs, insurance costs, and other costs for the less wealthy people.

    10. If in the event a major event were to occur during my term in office, I would _not_ overreact and go to war

    11. Make it a federal crime, punishable with a minimum of a $1 million dollar fine and 1 year in federal prison, for any public organization, company, school, collage, or anyone to deny and/or punish innocent people for expressing their Constitutional rights, or doing nothing at all.

  68. very disapointing answers by RevDigger · · Score: 1

    Just, "wow". Note to (almost) everyone who answered: America is losing two wars right now, and spending $200B for the privilege. I'm seeing maglevs and french language classes and...wow. All sorts of Star Trek engineering solutions, and (almost) no one mentions the loosing two wars thing. My expectation for the next election just dropped even lower.

  69. interns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Hire young female interns

    2) Buy box of cigars

    3) You know the rest...


    - Bill Clinton

    The question shouldn't be what, but who
  70. In phases by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    Phase One
        Real campaign finance reform
        Clean up children's television requirements/advertising to children
        Mandate debates of candidates
        Revoke broadcast rights of violators, pending hearing, making not following the law so frightening that broadcasters will follow with a big smile.
        Investigate last administration
        Pour money into the NSF, alternative fuels
        Mandate military to fund research on manufacturing processes for everything they buy
        Cleaner air for cities (increase coal restrictions) to lower asthma/health costs.
        Socialized medicine.
        Increase Social security payments -- 2% for all income above current cap.

    Phase Two
        Push prosecution of executive officers for wrongdoing by corporations
        Veto any law longer than 15 pages -- budget the only exception. "Just send me as many short laws as necessary."
        Establish a pork fund to eliminate waste of pork projects -- just send them the money.
        Eliminate all corn ethanol subsidies. Send large subsidies to independent farmers -- loss of ethanol revenue should not lower the yearly income of the independent farmer. No more money to ADM/Conagra.

    Phrase Three
        Eliminate executive orders. Rescind and publish all previous ones.
        More stringently define "State of War" to include congressional declaration thereof.
        Push for constitutional amendment to make treaties less powerful than the constitution.
        Set up truth and reconciliation commission on torture. Prosecute all who do not confess and attempt reconciliation.
        Increase penalties for bribery to life imprisonment.
        Set up branch of IRS to audit all elected officials every year.

    Phase Four
        Clean up electoral college. No declaration of candidates by college members until after election. No term limits for electors.

  71. FIx health care and stop CEO's form makeing big... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Fix health care and stop CEO's form makeing big money for job cuts and pay cuts.

    Dump the out outsourced EDS systems in the navy and marines.

    Fix the chicago area roads and other areas that need it.

    Push for high speed rail in the us.

    Dump the DMCA

    give president pardons to our soldier in jail for doing there job in iraq.

    Have bush put on trail for the laws that he broke starting with his fixing of the vote.

  72. Overhaul the electoral system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were president, I would overhaul the electoral system so that it was more fair. There has been plenty of research showing that plurality voting is the least fair method, http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/06/0649217. The root problem of all of the USA's woes is an ineffective, corrupt government and without addressing the system by which the representatives are elected, there will be no lasting change. Once the electoral system allows moderates to take part in US government again, other problems will be solvable rather than "trench warfare".

  73. Annex Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mexico has OIL, we can keep all of our tourist dollars, and the illegal immigration problem ceases immediately - stay where you are, we'll bring the U.S. to you!
    -shane

  74. Me? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    - End any form of government mandated censorship.
      - Codify network neutrality into law.
      - Legalize prostitution and most narcotics with some extra taxes imposed on both.
      - Limited copyright to a 10 year non-renewable term.
      - Mandate use of OSS and open document formats in all Government agencies.
      - Lower drinking age to 18.
      - Nationally increase age of consent to 18.
      - Build a number of state-owned hospitals that would provide medical care to all citizens for no charge (beyond the tax increases needed to pay for this)
      - Seriously review criteria for bringing civil suits to eliminate frivolous lawsuits
      - Codify the right of all citizens to own and carry small arms (anything firing a standard projectile that's not fully automatic. Fully automatics to be regulated by means of the Federal stamp as they are currently, but without the 1984 manufacture date cutoff).
      - Outlaw abortion (sorry, I know it's not popular around here, but that's one of my beliefs, and it's not religiously motivated).
      - Enact Federal laws to remove ID teaching from public schools.
      - Scale back military operations around the world. Reduce overall military budget by 15%. 1/3 of the recouped budget would be diverted to NASA. 1/3 to fund the aforementioned health plan coverage, and the other 1/3 to be directed towards funding independent scientific research.
      - Marriage replaced with legal entity civil partnership which is identical and open to any couple regardless of orientation. Marriage ceremonies are made legally unofficial and can be handled as each individual and their clergy sees fit.

      - Given that the President cannot do all of these things, I will rename my position "Supreme High Ruler". :D

    That's my idea of perfection. The sad truth is though that there is no perfect solution or perfect ruler, because many people want different things for this country. There are some issues that flat out are going to conflict between people. While we could all make "The world as it should be." (TM) if we were ruler of the world, we have to accept the fact that it would only be perfect from our own vantage point, and would still be just as flawed as it is now to many others.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  75. Let's see... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

    First, I would order the military leaders to devise an exit strategy for Iraq that would minimize military and civilian strategies. I don't know how to do it, they do so I'd leave the micromanaging up to them.

    I would also defund the great wall of Mexico and use that money along with a portion of the Iraq war money to improve our nations name over seas by offering a system of grants, assistance, and loans to developing nations and nations that have a stron anti-american sentiment. If the offer is refused it will be renewed every 6 months.

    At home, I would boost spending to education and sciences, especially "pure science" projects such as high energy physics. Legalize marijauna and tax the hell out of it, use this money and other vice taxes to implement a national insurance plan.

    Of course in order for that to happen I'd have to thrown the insurance lobby out of Washington so while we're at it we'll just get rid of all the lobbies at once.

    Finally, I would raise taxes for oil companies and on gasoline itself and use those revenues to do real developement on wind/solar/nuclear projects.

    Of course, that isn't so much an "If if were president" as it is an "If I were dictator". The chances of any of this happening are slim to none, even if the president wants it and works for it. Many things are decided by congress and congress is heavily influenced by the lobbies. If I had to choose between getting Republicans out of the white house or getting rid of lobbiests; well, how much more damage can the republicans really do?

  76. The first thing I do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill all the lawyers.

  77. Agenda by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

    Direct NASA to create fully automated, self-sustaining habitable outpost on Mars.

    Move friends and family there.

    Nuke Earth.

    1. Re:Agenda by techpawn · · Score: 1

      Nuke Earth.

      Nuke Earth? I guess it's the only way to be entirely sure...

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  78. Make things work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting with - build a bi-partisan administration. Goal #1: Get rid of the bickering in Washington. The administration would work internally to create a framework for solving problems. When it succeeds, a proposal is presented to Congress. When it fails, the matter is put on the back-burner to spend time on something that *can* be resolved.

    Goal #2: Push for congressional term limits and constitutionally-required balanced budgets.

    BTW - to those who would have our government do more than it already does - why in the *world* would you want the federal government to take on responsibilities like that? Hasn't the recent grab for power demonstrated how we should be getting government *out* of our life and not further into it?

  79. The List by MBCook · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here is what I can think of right now. I must say... this would never, ever, make it through congress.

    1. Abolish the IRS. I think Steve Forbes has a great plan for fixing government income
    2. No more sugar subsidies. The rest can be slowly phased out.
    3. Drugs don't go on the market (over the counter) without proof they work in some reasonable fraction of people (say... 25%?)
    4. Drugs (prescription) can't be advertised on TV
    5. Social Security and Medicare stop. You can stay on, but if you are under 40... you can forget ever using them. They are entitlement and bankrupting the government
    6. Vitamins and supplements must prove effectiveness too. No more magic diet pills that don't work.
    7. In fact, there will be a little government office dedicated to slapping fines on obvious false advertising.
    8. Congress now has a term limits. Lets say... 15 years.
    9. All campaign finance reform is lifted. You can raise whatever you want. You can spend on whatever you want. You're free. The catch? Every record, in and out, goes up on the 'net within 24 hours.... and you can't fund raise within 72 hours of the vote
    10. Speaking of elections, we can study other methods (e.g. instant runoffs). But whatever happens... paper ballots now. You put a big X in the box you want.
    11. Cable lines are nationalized. Comcast et al can lease them from the government. Heck, you can use them for free. We need competition.
    12. Net neutrality is mandatory. If you degrade someone else's service because it competes with your own, you get fined BIG.
    13. Drivers licenses get harder to get and keep. Too many morons on cell phones that need to learn it's not a right.
    14. If you get caught in the country illegally, you get thrown out. Today. No questions... you're on the plane. Each time you sneek in, we send you farther away. If you've been here over 5 years and can speak English, you can stay. You're not a citizen. You're on a permanent visa. No voting. If you want citizenship, you can go back to your country and apply like everyone else.
    15. English is the national language. You want a government document in something else? Too bad, go to a country that speaks that language.
    16. Mandatory civil service. We can talk about giving you college tuition, but you serve. It can be military, or it can be civil (be a meter maid, that's fine with me). You will do something to give back to your country for a little while.
    17. Voting districts are now drawn by computer based on population and area. No more rigging that. You can't do it by race. You can't do it by party affiliation. If the seat isn't completive, then we change the district to make it more competitive.
    18. Voting tests. They may have a really bad rap, but that's OK with me. Nothing complex, just some simple stuff. You have to be able to read at a 6th grade level. This discriminated against blacks because it was illegal to teach them to read. These days if you can't read, you can't participate effectively in politics. You also have to pass a ludicrously simple geography test. They will always change so you can't easily be taught to the test. If you can't find Canada on a map, you can't vote in the US.
    19. Roe v. Wade is abolished. I'd like to declare one side as right, maybe you can guess which. But what we will do is leave it up to each state. Let the states fight it out. If, after 50 years, it has been stable at a clear majority we can talk about enshrining that into law.
    20. You can't get divorced without 6 months of good marriage counseling, preferable faith-based (you choose the faith, obviously). The one exception is abuse. If there is abuse, you can leave today. We'll help. But if you accuse abuse and it is proven that you lied, you're locked up.
    21. Also on the marriage front, you can't get married without at least a few sessions of marriage counseling. Talk about kids, values, in-laws, sex, where you want to live, religion, and everything else. The divorce rate is
    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:The List by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Forgot one more: The gold standard (or something like it). Stop this inventing money out of thin air stuff.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:The List by richieb · · Score: 1

      You have no clue how the goverment works, do you? Presindent could done none of these things. Maybe he/she can propose and advocate some of these things.....

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    3. Re:The List by Kawolski · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but since when did that stop Presidential candidates from promising all this type of stuff anyway?

    4. Re:The List by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite.

      Abolish the IRS. I think Steve Forbes has a great plan for fixing government income

      Agreed, there is no reason a flat tax shouldn't work.

      Social Security and Medicare stop.

      Stopping Social Security is something I can get behind. I'm 28 and I know I'll never see a dime of anything I'm paying into. I think personal 401k accounts are a better route. Medicare I'm not so sure about, there are a lot of folks out there that need this money for medication. I think the issue is really universal healthcare, and the fact that we're one of the few modern Western nations that don't have it.

      Cable lines are nationalized. Comcast et al can lease them from the government. Heck, you can use them for free. We need competition.

      I agree that we need competition, but I can see the entire cable industry exploding over this one. They've paid to lay down the lines, and I can't see any of them being happy about the government stepping in and seizing what is essentially private property, and then making them pay to use said property again.

      Net neutrality is mandatory. If you degrade someone else's service because it competes with your own, you get fined BIG.

      Here here!

      Drivers licenses get harder to get and keep. Too many morons on cell phones that need to learn it's not a right.

      I don't know about that. There are millions of safe drivers in the US, I don't see a need to make it more difficult to get a driver's license. I do think there should be heavier fines for accidents caused by using a Cellphone (without a hands-free set).

      You can't get divorced without 6 months of good marriage counseling, preferable faith-based (you choose the faith, obviously). The one exception is abuse. If there is abuse, you can leave today. We'll help. But if you accuse abuse and it is proven that you lied, you're locked up.

      Also on the marriage front, you can't get married without at least a few sessions of marriage counseling. Talk about kids, values, in-laws, sex, where you want to live, religion, and everything else. The divorce rate is too high, and I see it as causing too many problems. These last two are designed to help lower that and improve things.

      OK, I really disagree with these, especially the faith-based bit. Marriage and divorce are certainly serious issues, but they're no one's business but the couple's.

      If you don't like high school, that's OK, you can quit. As soon as you hit... let's say 10th grade... you can choose. You can continue on college prep (which is what most high schools are at this point) or you can go to a trade school. It's your choice. If you change your mind you can always get your GED later.

      Sorry, I disagree again. Children (and that's what they are until they turn 18) are not capable of making rational decisions on their own. Like it or not their parents are responsible for their actions, and there are all too many teens out there that would think it's much better to quit school than to actually educate themselves. The way the world is today, if you don't even have a GED you'll never do more than be a fry cook at some grease-pit fast food joint. It would be irresponsible to allow high school students the choice to quit high school.

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    5. Re:The List by Hatta · · Score: 1


      # Mandatory civil service. We can talk about giving you college tuition, but you serve. It can be military, or it can be civil (be a meter maid, that's fine with me). You will do something to give back to your country for a little while.


      Taxes not good enough for you? And there's that matter of the 13th amendment.

      Roe v. Wade is abolished. I'd like to declare one side as right, maybe you can guess which. But what we will do is leave it up to each state. Let the states fight it out. If, after 50 years, it has been stable at a clear majority we can talk about enshrining that into law.

      They said president, not chief justice.

      # You can't get divorced without 6 months of good marriage counseling, preferable faith-based (you choose the faith, obviously). The one exception is abuse. If there is abuse, you can leave today. We'll help. But if you accuse abuse and it is proven that you lied, you're locked up.
      # Also on the marriage front, you can't get married without at least a few sessions of marriage counseling. Talk about kids, values, in-laws, sex, where you want to live, religion, and everything else. The divorce rate is too high, and I see it as causing too many problems. These last two are designed to help lower that and improve things.


      Sounds like you really don't want people getting married.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:The List by MBCook · · Score: 1

      I know exactly how it works. As the president I can request anything I want. It's up to congress to make the actual law and pass it and all that. I said none of it would get past congress. My list is mostly a "if I was emperor" type, but President is as close as I can get to that happening, and that won't happen (since I have no intention of running, ever, at this point).

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    7. Re:The List by ASBands · · Score: 1

      A lot of your ideas are interesting, and many of them are going to piss a lot of people off, but this particular one stands out as problematic:

      17. Voting districts are now drawn by computer based on population and area. No more rigging that. You can't do it by race. You can't do it by party affiliation. If the seat isn't completive, then we change the district to make it more competitive.

      I will use my home state of Kansas as a good example of "Gerrymandering." Here is a map of our congressional districts. As you can see, the third district is, by area, the smallest, but it contains an equal amount of people when compared to the other districts, as the Kansas City/Overland Park area is the most populated. It also houses almost all the Kansas Democrats. How would you redistribute the voting districts? If you did it by horizontal or vertical stripes of population distribution, the Democrats would not get a say in many votes, as they would be overpowered by the Republicans populating the rest of the state. In fact, the current solution is the only way Democrats get any say. Should the Democrats get a vote? Kansas has been a red state for a very long time. What I'm saying is there isn't really a good solution to the voting district problem (based on how we currently elect officials, anyway).

      20. You can't get divorced without 6 months of good marriage counseling, preferable faith-based (you choose the faith, obviously). The one exception is abuse. If there is abuse, you can leave today. We'll help. But if you accuse abuse and it is proven that you lied, you're locked up.
      21. Also on the marriage front, you can't get married without at least a few sessions of marriage counseling. Talk about kids, values, in-laws, sex, where you want to live, religion, and everything else. The divorce rate is too high, and I see it as causing too many problems. These last two are designed to help lower that and improve things.

      Another solution to this "problem" would be to abolish marriage altogether. There simply would be no more divorcing if you couldn't get married in the first place. Unfortunately, there are way too many things that revolve around the institution of marriage (taxes, insurance, banking, etc.) to completely get rid of it. Personally, I don't think the state should be interfering with the lives of people by forcing them to live in a situation that they don't want to be in. I don't know anybody that actually wants to get a divorce, but rather, sees divorce as the lesser of two evils.

      And forcing people to talk to a third party before they get a "marriage certification" isn't going to fix anything either. The Catholic church requires a "marriage training" thing if you want to have a Catholic wedding (I forget the official name), but the divorce rate for Catholics is not any different from Aetheists and Agnostics (granted, they are slightly lower than the national average, but this may have to do with the fact that Roman Catholics don't recognize divorce).

      Divorce happens for a reason, but there really isn't much we can do about it. Instead of trying to "fix" everything at once, why not try to knock out the actual reasons people get divorce. Here's a start: Many "bad" marriages come from unwanted pregnancy. How about we try to lower unwanted pregnancies? There are tons of ways to chip away at the perceived "problem" without forcing people to go through expensive councelling.

      22. There is a lot I don't like about the education system. We can try many different things to fix that. But if you cause too many problems schools should be able to kick you out. If you are that problematic your parents can educate you (or find someone else to). Stop ruining it for everyone else.

      --
      My UID is a prime number. Yeah, I planned that.
    8. Re:The List by MBCook · · Score: 1

      You make good points. On the cable issue, we'll just pay them a ton of money to buy what they already did. Or they can keep ownership and just be forced to let other use it (like phone lines).

      Drivers licenses is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I see so many people doing amazingly stupid things like texting while driving. Some places are passing laws against it, but I just think we should to something to make it more obvious that you can't go around doing stuff like that. There are other things that I would like as well (more restricted licenses for those under 21, for example). When you're 30 or so, there isn't much reason to make the license much tougher than it is now. But the younger you are, the harder it should be. How about mandatory defensive driving? Just an idea.

      The marriage thing is another issue of mine. I see so many problems related to that, I think we should do something. I can't mandate you have to date for X years or something like that. But I think many people get married without realizing some of the problems that even a tiny bit of marriage counseling would bring up (like how big a deal your separate religions are, or how your step kid isn't going to mind you and you need to accept that) that I think this kind of stuff is important. The divorce part is because I see many people as being divorced because they don't know what else to do, or that it will get better if they keep struggling. These are here as a way of getting people to think about this decision much more than they might right now. The faith based part? I think that if someone is in their faith even a bit, then that will be more effective than secular counseling. You don't have to go faith based, I think it's just a good idea.

      As for the mandatory civil service, you're right. They're not adults. Maybe we should actually move the age of majority back up. The idea behind this one is to fix some of those kids who are in school and don't care. They may not be old enough to choose some things (as you say), but by 10th grade they are more than capable of choosing to be disruptive and that they don't care about what they are being forced into (as they may see it). There isn't a point of forcing them to continue to attend classes when they might spend all their time not doing work and causing problems for teachers and other students who are interested in learning. If the kid is that committed, let's give them another option. Maybe they'll try it, see how tough life is with a blue collar job, and decide maybe they should go back on the track to college to get a better job. Maybe they'll like it. Maybe they'll just be a problem there too. I want to do something to help people like this, this was my best idea.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    9. Re:The List by Dlugar · · Score: 1

      I will use my home state of Kansas as a good example of "Gerrymandering." Here is a map of our congressional districts. As you can see, the third district is, by area, the smallest, but it contains an equal amount of people when compared to the other districts, as the Kansas City/Overland Park area is the most populated. It also houses almost all the Kansas Democrats. How would you redistribute the voting districts? If you did it by horizontal or vertical stripes of population distribution, the Democrats would not get a say in many votes, as they would be overpowered by the Republicans populating the rest of the state. In fact, the current solution is the only way Democrats get any say. Should the Democrats get a vote? Kansas has been a red state for a very long time. What I'm saying is there isn't really a good solution to the voting district problem (based on how we currently elect officials, anyway).

      Check out this algorithmically-drawn map:
      http://www.rangevoting.org/SSHR/ks_final.png

      It doesn't seem like that would be any worse than what you currently have today? See here for more details:
      http://www.rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html

      Dlugar
      --
      Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
    10. Re:The List by kwerle · · Score: 1

      OK. I have to start by saying that you're insane.

      Next I have to ask: what about guantanamo & the war? 2 things that the president can actually do something about. Or maybe you think they're OK (see point 1).

      But I do have a question:
      You can't get divorced without 6 months of good marriage counseling, preferable faith-based (you choose the faith, obviously). The one exception is abuse. If there is abuse, you can leave today. We'll help. But if you accuse abuse and it is proven that you lied, you're locked up.

      Also on the marriage front, you can't get married without at least a few sessions of marriage counseling. Talk about kids, values, in-laws, sex, where you want to live, religion, and everything else. The divorce rate is too high, and I see it as causing too many problems. These last two are designed to help lower that and improve things.


      Why on earth? I've seen this kind of thing advocated before, and I don't understand the notion at all. If the people getting divorced shared your values system, they probably wouldn't be getting divorced, would they? As it stands, I think that most divorcing couples do attend a few sessions of marriage counseling - they're called divorce lawyers. And if you think that divorce lawyers would wait a minute before changing their titles to marriage counselors, I don't think you know enough lawyers.

      At this point, aren't you just telling folks to not get married?

    11. Re:The List by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, his ideas are realistic (I agree with most of what he says). Anything polar opposite would be based on socialist "feel good" ideology.

      You must still be in college, right? Once you've graduated outside your cocoon and into the Real Word, you'll understand what I'm talking about...maybe.

      Socialism must be stopped at every turn in the US. It *must* be destroyed!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    12. Re:The List by STrinity · · Score: 1

      The gold standard fixes the amount of money in the economy, which severely limits growth, and causes severe inflation if any new sources are discovered. Gold based economies also tend to have deeper recessions than modern ones.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    13. Re:The List by STrinity · · Score: 1

      # Drugs don't go on the market (over the counter) without proof they work in some reasonable fraction of people (say... 25%?)
      The FDA already takes forever to approve drugs. Do you really want to add more regulations?

      Congress now has a term limits. Lets say... 15 years.
      Supreme Court has already ruled these unconstitutional -- only an amendment could put this into affect, which is beyond the power of the President.

      Drivers licenses get harder to get and keep. Too many morons on cell phones that need to learn it's not a right.
      Not only is this beyond your power as President, it's beyond the power of the federal government. Drivers licenses are regulated by the individual states.

      Voting districts are now drawn by computer based on population and area. No more rigging that.
      The second part does not logically follow from the first.

      Voting tests. They may have a really bad rap, but that's OK with me
      s/bad_rap/unconstitutional

      Since most of your proposals demonstrate that you don't understand how the government works, it seems that by your own reasoning you should not be allowed to vote, let alone be President.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    14. Re:The List by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 1

      When you're 30 or so, there isn't much reason to make the license much tougher than it is now. But the younger you are, the harder it should be. How about mandatory defensive driving? Just an idea.

      I think that if we were to make it more difficult to get a driver's license the younger someone is that it would create a barrier to being a contributing member of society. I live in Columbus, OH, and it's nearly impossible to get around without a vehicle. There is a bus system, but it doesn't run nearly regularly enough, or stop at enough locations to make it as efficient and effective as it should be. As for mandatory defensive driving, most driving tests already cover it as far as I know.

      The marriage thing is another issue of mine. I see so many problems related to that, I think we should do something. I can't mandate you have to date for X years or something like that. But I think many people get married without realizing some of the problems that even a tiny bit of marriage counseling would bring up (like how big a deal your separate religions are, or how your step kid isn't going to mind you and you need to accept that) that I think this kind of stuff is important. The divorce part is because I see many people as being divorced because they don't know what else to do, or that it will get better if they keep struggling. These are here as a way of getting people to think about this decision much more than they might right now. The faith based part? I think that if someone is in their faith even a bit, then that will be more effective than secular counseling. You don't have to go faith based, I think it's just a good idea.

      I agree that marriage counseling would probably help a lot of people, I just don't think that mandating it is the right way to go. I guess I'm also not the best person to voice an opinion on the matter, my wife and I dated for seven years before we finally got married, so we had plenty of time to get to know each other and to talk over the big issues.

      There isn't a point of forcing them to continue to attend classes when they might spend all their time not doing work and causing problems for teachers and other students who are interested in learning. If the kid is that committed, let's give them another option. Maybe they'll try it, see how tough life is with a blue collar job, and decide maybe they should go back on the track to college to get a better job. Maybe they'll like it. Maybe they'll just be a problem there too. I want to do something to help people like this, this was my best idea.

      I definitely agree that if the typical high school experience isn't working that they should have some options available to them. In my local school district (which I didn't go to) they have a couple of different tracks, including college prep and tech school. As for the kids that don't do anything but make trouble, well, there's always military school. A little discipline never hurt anyone.

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    15. Re:The List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realise that with your voting tests your own right-wing voters poulation would be severely reduced? Right-wing politics require a huge mass of stupid poor people supporting policies that actually go against them to work. Like voting for removing themselves from the voting census or even from citizenship.

    16. Re:The List by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I can see we are very different people.

      1. I'd make sure teh IRS was overseeing the 5% federal sales tax and remove all other federal taxes. Everything has to fit within that 5% though.
      2. No more subsidies for anything over one decade.
      3. All drugs medical and recreational can be released on the market after 24 hours of animal tests with an additional 20% tax on all recreational drugs.
      4. I hate those ads, but really, I want no government ad censoring at all.
      5. SS and Medicare can live. They just have to get only a slice of that 5% though.
      8. I think all elected offices should be one term only of an entire decade. You can't resign or be fired though. You've got one decade to succeed or really mess up. We hold exit elections when you leave office and you can be deported or shot if the population didn't think you did a good job in office.

      14. With my new federal sales tax everyone here is being taxed. So if you can prove that you've been in the US for 24 hours and have made let's say $100 of purchases of US goods within the US then congrates your a US citizen.
      15. I agree. But english changes too much. From now on, we are converting all government forms to latin and they all must be filled in with latin if you want them to be processed.

      16. I like that Mandatory civil service idea. I think that city, state, and feds should be required to hire new high school or college grads. It would help keep government pay low.
      I think voting, drinking, sex, marriage, smoking, doing random drugs, entering the military or government service should all be legal at age 16.

      19. I've never like abortions. I'll start a federal creche where every person given up for adoption goes. Biological parents have no rights over those offspring, but have to pay a 5% additional child support tax and write a yearly biography have medical history taken, and write an essay entitled "Why I chose to give you up."

      20 & 21. I'm very different from you here. The government no longer recognizes the institution of marriage. If you want to, go ahead, but it's just a religious service and has no government function what so ever. As far as the government cares, you can register or dissolve a marriage with 5 minutes of paper work, but a "marriage" doesn't give either party additional property or legal rights over either party any more.

      22, 23, & 24. I'm very different on the educational front. I think education is over rated. I think all education should be revamped about what citizens actually need to know to get by in life, fill out forms and effectively complain to the government to change crap. Everything else educational wise is bonus. All basic education should be expected to be finished by age 15. By age 16, you are either working for the government for 5 years, or in a min. wage job, or preparing to go to college. I'm very mixed on the entire work force needing college. My educational policy is that all schools from preschool to university are no longer tax supported and get no city, state, or federal funds. Every school makes up a bill of how much that grade's education will cost, and the students will have to prepay the costs. School isn't required any more, but if you want to go there, then you are going to see that it has an upfront cost. The schools can choose to fine discipline problem students by increasing their next bill by a factor of ten. If they won't pay, they don't have to go to that school anymore. If they do pay 10x more than everyone else, then they should be taking it seriously.

      Where I am a bit radical is that I'd actually use the OLPC and require one to be purchased per every US student. I'd also require that every US textbook is automatically owned by the US government and put up on a federal website that all those OLPC laptops should be able to access. The government no longer funds most research. If the government does happen to fund any part of your research though, the government automatically owns all of it and you are required to write up textbook type

    17. Re:The List by kwerle · · Score: 1

      You must still be in college, right? Once you've graduated outside your cocoon and into the Real Word, you'll understand what I'm talking about...maybe.

      Nearly 2 decades later. I guess I'll never get it.

    18. Re:The List by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      They said president, not chief justice.

      Well actually, it's the president that gets to nominate Supreme Court judges even though Congress provides an up or down vote. This is important because we need strict constitutionalists, not judges who legislate from the bench. The idea that the Constitution is a living-breathing-document is bunk. You can't just make constitutional interpretations based on our current culture. You MUST rule based on how it's strictly worded.

      As such, there's no reason why abortion should be granted at the federal level. It should be up to the states to decide.

      Sounds like you really don't want people getting married.

      Personally, I don't want *anyone* getting married unless their damn serious about it. The devorce rate is so high that it's actually harming this great institution of love and devotion. In fact, I really don't have a problem with gays/lesbians being in a union. But please people, take it seriously. Marriage isn't some Hollywood 24 hour special ending with a spectacular devorce, damnit!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re:The List by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Yay! People forcing their religion on us!

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    20. Re:The List by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      Tad pie in the sky. I can speak from some family experience with #20 How do you prove abuse? Most people that are being abused don't go up and maintain records or complain to the police. It takes a massive amount of courage and people to lean on to walk away from a situation that is truly bad. And thats without going into emotional abuse - destroying the essence of who someone is. I personally know people who have had their pregnancies threatened, been flung down a flight of stairs but still refused to report their Significant Others or believe that they did wrong. Actual abuse is far more insidious then the simple idea that omg he/she hit me i'm out.

    21. Re:The List by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Not only is this beyond your power as President, it's beyond the power of the federal government. Drivers licenses are regulated by the individual states.
      There's nothing against a federal minimum standard though. Leave it up to the States, but pull their funding if they don't meet basic standards. I hate the "States rights" argument when it over reaches its bounds. I'm not sure this does, but it is always a lame-o cop-out from the States-Rights! crowd. We are the United States, implying some sense of unity, no?
  80. It's not a magic lamp! by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Geez people, the question is what would you do if you were president, not what would you do if given 3 wishes. Even then, 9 out of 10 answers are so poorly thought out it makes me glad almost none of you will ever hold any elected office.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  81. My Platform by haplo21112 · · Score: 1

    1. Find a way to end the RIAA and MPAA
    2. Get the US out of the Berne Convention
    3. Find a way to get rid of the DMCA
    4. Find the happy medium in the whole IRAQ war, we need to pull back when its possible, but we can't leave yet, figure out when its safe to bring most home, while still ensuring the stability of the region, and the safety of our allies and interests.
    5. Find a way to impliment sane network neutrality for the internet.
    6. Get the FCC to revise the rules around Broadband deployment, re-define what broadband means, grant a nationwide license on the provision that the telco's must make broadband available to 100% of the country under the provisions of what my administration has defined broadband to be within my term of office.
    7. Force the opening of the Cell Networks under the provisions of true openness. The phones my not be locked in anyway, if the vendor of the phone offers a feature the Telco must make the faeture available and allow it to work. Ie. If the phone is capable of having a USB plugged into it to upload/download ring tones, pictures, text, etc without having to go over the telco's data network then it must be capable of doing that.
    8. Force Microsoft to play nice in the market place (this applies to all other vendors as well) no more secrets. All protocols must be open, all hardware must be supportable by any OS.
    9. Find some way to force Apple to open the iPod, and the MAC Hardware/Software.
    10. Give the Space Program the shot in the arm it needs.
    11. $1,000,000,000 bounty on Osama bin Laden's head.
    12. Raise Emmisson Standards to where they oughta be, the Auto industry needs a serious kick in the ass, Neccessity is the mother of invention, make the standards immpossibly high and force the companies to get there.
    13. Overhaul patent and trademark system, key point you must have a product (or have the aptent licensed to a company that has a product)
    14. ICANN, I think it needs to stay in US hands, but it needs more international support and inclusion.
    15. Sign the Kyoto Protocol, but only if Japan Bans Whaling.
    16. Outsourcing/Off Shoring/Global Sourcing, whatever you call it some control needs to be had in all sectors, IT, AUTO, etc over the number of US jobs going over seas.
    17. Recognize that the Illegal Immigration problem is not going to get solved, find a rational way to handle the issue and allow those who need to come to America to come here and join society without having to do it illegally.

    Thats a quick list I could probably think of more that were less technology oriented given time.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  82. remove some laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. repeal the dmca
    2. repeal the patriot act
    3. enact a flat tax
    4. remove drug possession as a crime
    5. read the president's book of secrets
  83. Oooo...where to start... by Krinsath · · Score: 1

    Well, I think I'd start by trying to get to some sort of workable solution in Iraq. Just pulling up and leaving isn't feasible, but definitive goals with actual progress need to be put in and if people don't meet them, then other people who will would be put in and those that failed better have some good reasons or they'll be cashiered out of government service. Not going to be unreasonable about it, but if there are signs that best effort wasn't given...

    Dove-tailing with that would be an attempt to get the US to realize that it's not the world and merely a part of it. Try to extend the olive branch on a few arguments that have gone on for decades with no end in sight (Cuba, Iran, etc.) and even if they swat it away and stomp on it, at least we attempted to broker a fair end to the acrimony between nations. Not to say that other countries can boss the US around, but just an attempt to play nice with the neighbors rather than blasting the music louder.

    On the home front, I'd take a long, hard look at ending entitlement programs. Welfare would see a fairly major curtailing in all likelihood, and employment would see a revamp. While I would want to leave as much in to assist people displaced by a market shift who are honest workers and trying to get into a new field (which could require school and the like), people who sit around for years doing nothing would find themselves out of luck. Hopefully, that will save a few bucks to go towards things like healthcare and such as healthcare is one of the few "entitlements" I'd probably leave alone. The goal would be that nobody starves or has to suffer a disease untreated...but you don't get money for existing. Nor do you get money to buy food...you want government assistance on food, you take what you get. Don't like it? Get the hell off the support program and get a job!

    Educationally, wow...so much work to be done. First off, No Child Left Behind gets the axe under the "no more entitlement" clause above. A new program, Every Child Left Behind would be put in wherein teachers are encouraged to only pass deserving students. Set the bar high, make them rise to it...basically. If they can't, they don't earn their diploma or what have you...give some actual worth to these pieces of paper again. While there's limits to what the federal government can dictate here, I'd call for states to bring back actual education where the students learn to absorb and process information logically rather than recite facts to pass a test. A hard road to hoe there, but one that I think would pay long-term dividends to have a population of thinking citizens.

    Another goal would be to revive American industry, though that is something I'm still a bit vague on the particulars. Surely though, the world still has demand for products that don't poison you or explode or fall apart after three weeks even if they cost a few dollars more.

    On the liberties side, the Nanny State would see a bloody end, and Security Theater would probably give its last showing. Congress would be handed a mandate to fix broken, stupid laws rather than creating more broken, stupid laws and while they'd likely ignore it, the people at that point can vote in representatives that will fix laws if that's what they feel should be done. If they don't, well...the people said they don't care about that so I'd just have to move on. Morality would not be legislated, but would be a personal choice. So long as your choices do not infringe on the rights of others then the law won't interfere. There will be particular issues that will need to be handled in less of a "carte blanche" fashion (such as addictive and/or mind-altering drugs), but on the whole the money being hemorrhaged trying to keep people from being stupid will stop being spent and hopefully natural selection will take over and remove the stupid people.

    Eh...think that's enough pointless scheming out of me...being that I'll never in a million years be the President... ;P

  84. If I were king for a day... by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    Let's face it, you would need king like authority to do any serious changing of the US or the world in a single term. Having said that, Here is what I'd like to see changed:

    1 - Undeclare all the wars; war on terror, war on drugs, war on want/poverty, NCLB, etc... In other words, stop fighting wars on moralistic/neoconservative crap that furthers the neocon agenda.
    2 - set up a academic type trust or board (5 members from each state not including educational institution members) to go back to the constitution and re-evalute EVERY fucking law that has been made since. Hope that states would follow suit. The goal being to slim it down, get rid of stupid laws.
    3 - Do similar to scrap and replace the current tax system (taxes pay for some good stuff, but we don't need that much taxation if we don't pay for bad stuff) -- simplified explaination.
    4 - delete Fox News from the US, and from History... ok, that's wrong, but it might be fun to try
    5 - Enforce open government from the top down

    6 - Try to stay alive long enough to run in the next election

  85. Osama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd start a search for Osama Bin Laden. I think he's dangerous.

  86. Gnomes for president by pseudorand · · Score: 1

    1. Leave Iraq
    2. Provide universal healthcare
    3. ????
    4. Profit.

  87. Undo the Harm Already Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first thing I'd do is sponsor a bill that would repeal all legislation enacted since 2000. No Child Left Behind, PATRIOT Act... All of it.

    The last administration has spent their time in power eroding civil liberties (by expanding surveilance on citizens, while reducing oversight and burden of proof). They've spent their time making the rich richer while keeping the poor down. They've been encouraging the buddy-system and extremely partisan politics at the expense of at least half the country which disagrees. They are most likely the most corrupt administration in the history of the nation, using Executive Privilege and presidential pardon powers to prevent any investigation and keep their friends out of trouble.

    The last administration has cut funding to NASA and other scientific research, and to education. They've set a precedent for "pre-emptive strike." They've ruined our economy and devalued our currency.

    The next president is likely to be a 'lame duck' president in the best case scenario, because it will probably take more than 8 years to undo the damage that's been done by this previous administration. The next president will also have to take the brunt of the political, economic, and popular fallout from the poor policies of the previous administration. That worries me more because there is at least one candidate which I believe could actually be a great progressive president who could do some real good for the future of the nation, but even if he gets elected he'll likely be average at best because of the mess he'll be handed coming in.

    1. Re:Undo the Harm Already Done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you didn't know that the currency has been in decline for *decades* you have no right to talk about the rest of what you thought happened during the last administration. you finally start to wipe the crust from your sleeping eyes and blame the first person you see. no wonder we're not making any real progress.

  88. If I Were President . . . by cashman73 · · Score: 1
    • My Vice President would be Stephen Colbert
    • John McCain would be Secretary of State, Ron Paul would be Secretary of the Treasury, and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be Secretary of Defense. Jay Leno would be my Press Secretary. Dick Cheney would become my new janitor.
    • None of my budgets would overspend the amount of money we actually have
    • Our military would be used only in cases where there is an actual plan, and a strategy
    • I would introduce a new Constitutional Amendment prohibiting anyone with the last name 'Bush' or 'Clinton' from holding the office of President or Vice President,... and anyone that uses the internet handle 'CowboyNeal'
    • Britney Spears and Paris Hilton would be put to death (I'd do the same for my horse if he were seriously injured; put 'em out of their misery, once and for all)
  89. What I would do... by sigmabody · · Score: 1

    In no particular order:
    - Get rid of social security (or scale it down drastically); it's already bankrupt, so no big change other than admitting that
    - Fix medical insurance by legislating severe penalties for insurance companies discouraging treatment (without socializing healthcare and destroying our lead in medical research)
    - Investigate establishing an independent court in the government responsible for investigating cases of breach of constitutionality in actions of anyone in any branch. There would be very strict standards for bringing actions and finding guilty (ie: gross breach and 3/4 majority to find guilty), but guilt would result in immediate impeachment.
    - Change the tax code to a flat tax (fixed % for everyone); different %'s possible for investment and work income.
    - Establish independent, private, non-partisan commission to develop an index for real inflation. Allow inflation amount of investment income tax free each year (ie: allow people to keep up with inflation before counting "real" income on investments).
    - Force a balanced budget
    - Work on protecting privacy, civil liberties, freedom

    Clearly I'll never be elected, lol.

  90. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by rsborg · · Score: 1
    Great Song (itunes link)

    Seriously, don't agree with all points in the song, but it's got a powerful message.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  91. I would tax the poor. by LibertineR · · Score: 2, Funny
    I'm not kidding. Anything you want less of in America, you should just tax it. Nothing works better.

    Rich people are EXPERT at staying rich. They tax the poor all the time, and because economic education in America sucks, few realize it.

    Next, I would bring back the F-14 Tomcat, just because of the cool-factor, but also because the Hornet cant carry enough gas to do anything bad-ass.

    FORCE every child in America to pass Logic 101, thus ending all public protests, unions, strikes, and Geraldo Rivera.

    To halt Drunk driving, I would remove parking lots from all bars and liquor stores. Walk it off, bitches.

    I would last, institute the "Apple Act" where if a corporation cannot prove what it claims in its advertisements, an F-14 drops a JDAM on their headquarters building.

    1. Re:I would tax the poor. by mrhandstand · · Score: 1

      FYI - maybe an F-15? Don't recall that the 14 had air-to-ground capability...

      and yes...WAY nitpicky. It's just that I liked the rest of the post :-D

      --
      Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
    2. Re:I would tax the poor. by LibertineR · · Score: 1

      The F-14B and D models did indeed have air to ground capability, especially the D. They dropped many of the early JDAMs used over Iraq.

  92. It's a long list. by Onan · · Score: 1
    1. Replace our terrible stacked plurality electoral system with a single-layer approval or condorcet vote. (A plurality vote is an atrocious way to determine the will of the electorate. And, like stacking lossy compression, our current caucus->delegates->primary->per state plurality->electoral college arrangement just adds more and more noise to the system.)
    2. Rapidly withdraw all US troops from Iraq, and attempt to, y'know, not murder a million innocent people here and there for no reason beyond a cheap political stunt.
    3. Conversely, stop ignoring the war in Afghanistan that we started and then have let sit halfway done for six years. Afghanistan actually was directly complicit in an attack on the US, and a military response was justified. But we need to finish making it a non-miserable place to live, or it will continue to generate people whose lives are so awful that they feel they have no better options than throwing them at us.
    4. Reduce defense[sic] spending by around 80%. The US has not been in significant danger of attack for many decades, and during that time our military has only been used to increase that small chance.
    5. Simplify the tax code by about five orders of magnitude. A simple flat tax is an awful idea, but the simplest and most clearly predictable curve that is genuinely progressive will do the trick. The endless loopholes and credits and subsidies that have been used to encourage various behaviours have far exceeded their utility.
    6. Remove marriage as a legal construct. Marriage is a social and sometimes religious construct, and not something that the government has any business regulating. Something akin to power of attorney, which grants the things currently covered by the legal construct of marriage, should be available to any combination of people, regardless of the nature of their relationship.
    7. End the prohibition on recreational drugs, including the release and rehabilitation of all people currently incarcerated for drug offenses. The US imprisons a greater portion of its populace than any other nation on earth, at enormous cost, and with terrible effects. Invest in drug education and treatment centers, and treat unhealthy addiction like the health problem that it is, rather than the criminal problem that it is not.
    8. Last but very much not least, completely nationalized healthcare. I believe that our government should regulate and mandate considerably fewer things than it does today--but healthcare is one of those things. It precisely the variety of thing that should be handled collectively: it is a service which absolutely everyone requires, and it is disastrously expensive when purchased individually, but manageable when purchased collectively. Rather than describing the shortcomings of our current healthcare "system", I'll refer you to one chart that sums them up nicely.
  93. In memory of Douglas Adams by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Steal a space shuttle.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  94. Re:legislate to hem in the power of the exec branc by AmaDaden · · Score: 1

    I would immediately begin to ask congress for a new checks and balances constitutional amendment.
    This might not be popular on Slashdot but mandatory online tracking of all federal elected officials. All activities and dealings of anyone selected by the people to a high seat of office should be more then happy to show their bosses (the people) what they have been doing with their time.

    Don't like it? Then don't run for office. Why should we even bother to consider you say that we can't trust you?

    Caught doing something bad or that the people didn't like? Shouldn't have been doing that. You are a representative, you represent us.
    Doing something "Top Secret"? That's fine, just let us know who you are hanging out with that way if you ARE doing something we think we don't like we know who else should be brought to the trial latter.

    Worried about being attacked be terrorists? You do have the secret service to protect you. But not all locations of what you are up to need be known, just your political plans.

    Gonna lie about any of this? That my friend is high treason and will be treated as such.
  95. Simple by Templaris · · Score: 1

    First, take the Revolution-Counter Revolution Idea to keep stability after declaring war on different government types. 2nd, I would start minting ducats at a low inflation rate to help pay for the Grand Army that is going to take over the Western Hemisphere. I would need some good diplomat advisors to lower my badboy for all the annexations. Finally, I would move my slider towards free subjects to lower revolt risk. Oh, life isnt Europa Universalis III after all....

    1. Re:Simple by Blackhalo · · Score: 1

      "11. Rollback Copyright extensions to life of author + 25 years." Still too long.

      --
      "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
  96. Start with a philosophy by Teppy · · Score: 1

    Presidents can veto bills, make speeches ("Lead"), and a few other things.

    I would make "does this law increase or decrease individual liberty?" the litmus test whether I'd sign a given bill. Now some things like invading Afghanistan probably are a net increase to individual liberty: they actively sheltered people who had already attacked us, and being under decreases one's liberty more than the resulting increase in taxes decreases it.

    Nation building in Afghanistan, in my estimation, decreases individual liberty more than the gain realized by having a stable Afghanistan.

    If there was a reasonable uncertainty whether a law would increase or decrease liberty, I'd err on the side of caution by having the government do as little as possible.

    The Iraq war, the patriot act, and nearly everything done in the name of fighting terrorism are huge infringements on liberty, both directly and via taxes.

    As for speeches, I would try to show the American people how the system of entitlements that now pervades our society has twisted our culture. I don't care that "every industrialized nation does X": Since when did we become followers?

    I'd try to get one state to accept this deal: "If you are willing to forgo all federal entitlement programs for your people, then the federal tax rate in your state is $1000 per person - collect it any way you'd like." And when a hurricane hit the state, I'd get on TV and say to the rest of the country: "Your fellow Americans are hurting - please be a patriot and do what you can to help."

    And then I'd try to get a second state to take that deal.

    I'd never get elected.

  97. D'OH how could I forget by haplo21112 · · Score: 1

    18. Codify Fair Use in to law!

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  98. I've thought about this a lot... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Assuming that I had the political clout to do whatever I wanted, one of the first things that I would do would be to push through major copyright reform. Specifically, the length of a copyright term would be reduced to 14 years with one optional 14 year extension. I wouldn't be completely cold-hearted to those folks whose large stores of Intellectual Property were suddenly Public Domain, though. I would phase in the new copyright terms for existing works. Starting with 1923, I would have 10 years of works fall into the public domain every year. So, assuming that we begin in 2009 - when the next President takes office - copyrighted materials from 1923-1932 would fall into public domain in 2010. 2011 would see works from 1933-1942 enter public domain and so forth until we were all caught up. I would also assume that any works created 10 years or more ago were renewed.

    The other major change I would make is also copyright related. I would split the fines for copyright infringement into two categories. The first would be "For Profit Infringement." These would be the places that buy one CD, run off a thousand copies, and sell them on the streets for a buck each. The fines for this group would be the same as are currently set ($750-$150,000 per infringement). The other category would be "Not For Profit/Home Infringement." This would be for Ma Doe whose 14 year old daughter installed Kazaa and wound up on the wrong end of a RIAA lawsuit. This class of infringement would only be liable for 10x fair market value of the items infringed. For example, suppose the RIAA investigators found 300 songs shared on Ma Doe's system. Fair market value per song is $0.99. So each infringement would be $9.90 and the total fine would be $2,970. Still high, yes, but not so high that an unintended civil offense leads to Ma Doe's bankruptcy. The RIAA would still be able to engage in their lawsuits, but demanding "settle or face a fine of about $3,000" doesn't have the same terrifying ring as "settle of face a fine of 45 MILLION DOLLARS!"

    Of course, there's more I would do, but those are the two that spring to mind.

    Oh yeah. Also I'd push through a Slashdot Poster Tax Credit.

    Vote Levine 2009! ;-)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  99. 10 Steps -- Whole Lotta Humility by eepok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Step #1 - Get the resumes of each of the people who have the opportunity to directly influence my decisions. Get rid of the people whose resumes are not up to my standards. Well, maybe not, "get rid". Possibly just bench them.

    Step #2 - Neuter the Department of Homeland Security. Start finding different places for their employees to go because I would shut them down before my term is over.

    Step #3 - Address the country and read to them the Bill of Rights and first bit of the Declaration of Independence... then apologize for the lies of many of my predecessors while thanking them for creating such a stable staging ground for the next era of development of the nation.

    Step #4 - Befriend the ACLU and the NRA

    Step #5 - Slowly, begin to trim the fat from various auxiliary military budgets and reinvest that money in raising the quality of Intermediate, Elementary, Pre-K education/childcare. (New Teacher Initiatives, Federal bonuses for X many years as a teacher, etc.)

    Step #6 - Add debt forgiveness incentives against higher education loans if the student enters industries of high need and/or learns Arabic, Chinese (either), Korean, Spanish, Japanese.

    Step #7 - Begin swapping US troops for UN Peacekeepers (2:1) in Iraq and sponsor a system of reconstruction that will allow for schools and infrastructure over profit-focused industry. (They can do that on their own)

    Step #8 - Address the UN. State that the US has been wrong on many occasions and we will often continue to be wrong. However, today, we begin to acknowledge our shortcomings and will begin the long trek to become the nation we always wanted to be.

    Step #9 - Re-regulate energy companies around the nation (If you want guaranteed profit, don't expect it to be a lot).

    Step #10 - Sit down with the automotive industry and tell them that I will not be covering any of their butts for any reason until they allow their engineers low-fuel-consumption automobiles to hit the production line WITH attractive exteriors.

  100. oil independence by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    Take all the scientists Congress just put out of work and get them working on solar fuels (biofuels are nice, but don't actually remove fossil fuel dependence). No extra grants until we get that. Making the US a main fuel supplier for the world, in a clean way, would do a lot for our economy, reputation, and international influence.

  101. Four Point Plan by pete-classic · · Score: 1
    I have no idea what I'd do as President, but here's what I'd do as Emperor.

    1. Do away with the income tax.
    2. Dissolve the standing army.
    3. End drug prohibition.
    4. Score with some seriously hot women.


    -Peter
    1. Re:Four Point Plan by jmartens · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new horny overlord.

      --
      Now that's a death ray!
  102. Truthfully? by faloi · · Score: 1

    I'd sit back and do nothing. I'd force Congress to take the heat for their own actions, and spend most of my presidency vetoing everything. The country seems to do a lot better when the President and Congress are opposed and neither can really get anything done. It's almost like the way it was likely intended to go when the whole concept of checks and balances was floated.

    Having a Congress that votes for anything based on polls and knee-jerk reactions could be stopped by a President that vetoes their shenanigans. Having a Congress willing to stand up for what's right and not vote for whatever the President recommends because of polls or knee-jerk reactions prevents a President from running amok. And having a judicial branch ready to stop whatever happens to make it through helps out.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  103. Change government so others can change the world by curunir · · Score: 1

    Our government is broken. The people aren't represented and our votes don't count. Special interests control public policy and this is the core of almost all problems we face today.

    As your next president, I promise to do everything I can to change this. I plan to enact substantive campaign finance reforms. Namely, political campaigns will be funded by the government. No donations of any size will be allowed. The amount of money given each candidate will depend on the office being run for, but will be equal for all candidates no matter the party nor the incumbent status.

    And I plan to propose a constitutional amendment to change how congress is elected. This amendment will end the winner-take-all system that has resulted in the tweedle-dum and tweedle-dummer parties holding all elected offices. In its stead, we will have a system of proportional representation, a system that has proven far superior in other democratic countries around the world.

    It is my sincere belief that when mechanism for government has been reformed, those who follow me in holding this office and the offices in congress can affect real change. They will be able to represent the people who elect them and hold real principles that will guide their policy decisions.

    To paraphrase from a certain masked man who's words ring true for me...The truth is that there is something seriously wrong with this government. And if you don't see this, I suggest you let the 4th of November pass unnoticed. Vote for whatever Republicrat you feel will actually make some difference. But if you see what I see and if you feel what I feel, then join me at the polls to reclaim our government for the people and together we'll give them a 4th of November to remember.

    --
    "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  104. My View by usul294 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My main agenda would be to promote personal responsibility. I would also promote states rights, I think alot of bureaucracy could be avoided by having more local control of things. One example for states being healthcare and on an even more local level education. A good policy in one part of the country is often not a good policy on the other side of the country. I'd work to remove federal control of most things, not unlike Ron Paul, I'm not a supporter of his, though I think he has the right philosophy. I'd then work on accomplishing goals to restore people's pride in America by promoting cutting edge science research, aiding developing countries and space exploration. I'd try to take a pragmatic approach to climate issues, trying to find more innovative solutions to climate issues than things like a carbon tax, for example spending money to reforest parts of America. Also, I'd try to simplify the tax code by either having a simpler graduated income tax, with less exemptions and lower percentages, or institute a consumption tax that is somehow graduated. In terms of Iraq and terrorism, I would try to accomplish specific goals and start to reduce US troop levels as soon as it was reasonable to do so, but certainly make sure that the country was stable first. For other threats to security, I'd follow Asimov "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", and try to use our might in more precise ways to achieve a desired goal, one scenario I could imagine is if things go bad in Iran, to simply use our air power to stop anything from entering the country, after a few weeks the country would run out of food and water, so the government would be overthrown, or change itself entirely to stop the blockade. But to sum it all up, basically promote responsibility and fairness,restore American pride, and focus on how to solve our problems without resorting to full-scale invasions.

  105. Interesting thought... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1
    The presidental sector of the government seems to be too much in control - not only the president himself but a lot of the grey-hats that surrounds the president. A revision here should be useful - even if it weakens the office.

    But first I think that the current government needs a scrutiny. It seems that there are a few persons there that has to take responsibility for unnecessary violence.

    An adjustment to the Second Amendment seems to be overdue. There should at least be some limitation on the right to bear arms. Verify that the person is competent enough by verifying weapon handling and safety first to avoid unnecessary accidents. And also have a mandatory health check at regular intervals. Followed by a weapon storage safety regulation that notes that when not in use a weapon shall be locked-up and disabled to avoid accidents with children and limit weapons theft.

    The voting system may have been good once - but in today's world it may be improved upon. Mostly since the technology of today may offer a different way to do an election. Another thing is to require that any voting calculation method must be available for scrutiny by the public.

    Every citizen shall be able to get a health insurance - at a reasonable cost. For individuals below the age of 18 the state shall provide reasonable health care. (not free, but at a cost that isn't prohibitive). Don't forget that people with bad health isn't as able to pay income taxes as healthy people.

    Education is important - and this means that if a person is competent enough that person shall be able to study at a higher level without prohibitive costs. However the competence requirement will have to be re-evaluated at regular intervals.

    Requirement for schools to not dismiss the theory of evolution - and especially not to push any religious beliefs upon the children. If they want to know - fine - but that's what Freedom of Religion is about. Forcing a certain religion in a public school is a different thing.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Interesting thought... by webmaster404 · · Score: 1

      I happen to disagree with you on a lot of it (well mostly all of it) so I will post my reasons why...

      For the president, I don't think that he is in too much control, I do think though that in a mixed president/congress situation where the president is republican and the congress is democrat or vice-versa, not much will get done positive and the president will keep vetoing until they can get the majority needed to overturn it, and it goes on and on. The president sure has a lot of influence, but very little power on the real side of things.

      As for the second amendment thing, if anything we need less control over firearms. First, there are very few accidents involving firearms when you consider the amount of them. Secondly, some children can get access to guns sure, however some can get access to knives and other objects that can be used to hurt or kill someone. Also, if "when not in use the gun should be locked up" becomes law, that takes out any possibility of guns being used in self-defense. A criminal who would go out and kill someone isn't going to be worried about breaking a law of say stealing a gun, or not registering it, or whatever else people come up with.

      I agree that elections need better methods and more records to trace them. In an age where E-voting machines are likely less locked down then some in-store-demos, we need accountability.

      Government provided health insurance will make both our taxes to increase and quality of service to go down. Unlike in software, people aren't going to go through 5 years of school just to be a volunteer doctor. Even though health insurance should be affordable, every time the government tries to do something they always, always, always, mess up big time, just look at welfare for an example.

      Higher education is important yes, however just look at pubic schools, general they do poorer then private schools because there is no competition, if we were to do this in universities, that would be even worse. Not to mention we don't need more government propaganda.

      I don't think that evolution needs to be stressed too strongly. It is a theory, yes but it has several un-plugged holes. The best way for schools to deal with it is to have open debate about it and not just teach it as either pure fact or pure fiction. Kids need to learn to think for themselves and create their own values.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
  106. Non-Native Americans? by tepples · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would increase punishments for non native americans who commit crimes. At what fraction of "Indian" blood would you draw the line? Or by "native" did you mean a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment?
    1. Re:Non-Native Americans? by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

      "Native:

      1: inborn innate 2: belonging to a particular place by birth 3archaic : closely related4: belonging to or associated with one by birth5: natural normal6 a: grown, produced, or originating in a particular place or in the vicinity..."

      Your point fails. I was born in the US, that makes me a native.

      Why do you people try so hard only to fail so spectacularly? Are you honestly so stupid that you think "native" means "indian"?

      It appears you are.

    2. Re:Non-Native Americans? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I was born in the US, that makes me a native. Thank you for clarifying.

      Are you honestly so stupid that you think "native" means "indian"? "Native American" is an idiom. I was pointing out how your comments might be misinterpreted.
    3. Re:Non-Native Americans? by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Are you honestly so stupid that you think "native" means "indian"?

      It appears you are.


      Wow man, you really take slashdot very seriously. It was a joke, even I didn't took it wrongly. Making the clarification would be enough, but attacking the poster?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  107. Actionable Items List by justanyone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quick priorities:
    - Carbon tax that feeds R&D and subsidies to clean tech;
    - NASA reforms including purchases of commodity products as-delivered-to-orbit with no spec on how to get them there;
    - Foreign aid money governed by transparency index (Transparency International at transparency.org);
    - Emissions taxes that self-finance the EPA (tax all emissions and fines go to further enforcement);
    - Net neutrality and passenger bill-of-rights acts;
    - Repeal of monopoly power over broadband re: cable modems, etc.
    - College subsidies for U.S. citizens or foreigners that intend to locate here;
    - Strict enforcement of current INS laws requiring workers to show proof of employability before being allowed to work here coupled with green card lottery (worldwide, not just to Mexico);
    - Repeal of Patriot act provisions for search without warrents;
    - Redeployment of almost all U.S. troops from South Korea;
    - Change from a Class A to a Class B drug (legalization, under inpatient Doctor's supervision), of the Heroin addiction cure Ibogaine ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine/rel=url2html-972http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine/ >;
    - No Child Left Behind act changes to ease regulatory burden and channel money where its needed;
    - Expansion of the Peace Corps.;
    - Possible construction of a Trans-Alaska highway / railway that can lead to a cross-Bearing straights bridge;
    - Possible approval of a nuclear pebble bed reactor design and reprocessing facilities;
    - A balanced budget.

    Just some ideas.

  108. Laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are people talking about enacting laws? The president doesn't enact laws, that's what Congress does.

  109. Economy? by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

    I agree with number 2, number 3 will take more than just a team of PR types, number 1 is the problem though... You can't "fix" oil prices. Oil prices are high because globally we're running out of oil and demand is increasing. Prices are going to go up. period. Nothing you can do. (You know, except stop using oil). No, I'm not an environmentalist, but betting on fixing oil is just bad business. America needs to proactively switch to something else if we don't want to be slaves to a foreign, oil holding, power.

    Anyway, back to the housing stuff. The housing slump is largely the result of (borderline) criminal activity. It hasn't been very well publicized but basically shady mortgage brokers forged lending documents and got people into homes they never should have had with mortgages that would screw them in a few short years. They got their commission regardless of whether the home was ultimately foreclosed on. Given the changes in the lending market, many people's credit, and the financial institutions' ability and willingness to give credit, I'd say time is the main factor here. People need time to rebuild their credit and dig themselves back out of their holes - the same is true for the lenders. No magic wands necessary! The only changes that I see as being necessary are improvements in the way brokers are held accountable. Obviously this situation benefited neither the lender nor the debtor; surely there's a way we can at least prevent this from happening again.

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    1. Re:Economy? by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "basically shady mortgage brokers forged lending documents and got people into homes they never should have"

      That is too narrow in the blame. The problem WAS shady brokers, but it was also, shady lenders. My wife worked for a couple of different direct lenders during the boom, and the number of forgeries that went on at the lenders themselves were amazing. The lenders were giving loans that they knew the borrowers could not afford. They were just counting on the borrower refinancing later when the house went up in value.

      There was also the problem of shady real estate agents that would convince buyers that they could afford more house than they could afford. When we were buyers during the boom, we would go through real estate agents like they were used baby diapers. The agents would just flat out refuse to show a house that was not at the absolute limit of what the shady brokers/lenders would give you a loan for.

      Then you can't dismiss the buyers themselves. It was common practice for people to buy houses that they knew they couldn't afford. They just assumed that they could sell or refinance after the price went up.

      The housing crash is a perfect example of a system that broken on every level.

    2. Re:Economy? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Done on a small scale, predatory lending isn't harmful to the industry (though it is, obviously, harmful to the homeowner.) I wouldn't even be terribly surprised if such practices weren't unofficially endorsed by upper-management. What's the worst that can happen? The borrower defaults and the lender gets the house, which they can probably sell for more than was remaining on the loan (except in some really wacky states where you can't lose your homestead.)

      But such an idea doesn't scale without having a serious effect on the industry. Doing this too much inflates prices in the short term, then you can't sell the house to make back the money because so many people have defaulted. You've taken your customers and made sure that they won't be customers again for 7 years, at least (length of time that such a black mark can stay on your credit score.)

    3. Re:Economy? by grrrgrrr · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate the situation the US and therefor the world economy is in. Asia is financing US consumption on a massive scale and that cannot go on. At a given moment the Asians want to enjoy some of their hard earned money them selfs and stop lending their money to the US The financial crisis is just the tip of the iceberg it started because the interest-rates where getting raised because the dollar was plummeting it was just the most risky loans that got in trouble this time but there are a lot more loans that maybe in trouble as the situation worsens and that will be inevitable.

    4. Re:Economy? by tic!lock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Replace "was" with "is" and "are" and you have the perfect post.

        In the last two months I've had four real estate agents lie straight-faced to me about houses they were showing, and when I called them on it they flat out told me to get off of "their" property. One of the houses that was being shown had major structural problems, but the agent showing it to me assured me that it had passed a "city inspection", yet none of the qualified local inspectors had ever heard of the asshole showing it to me, and the structural defects were glaringly obvious to anyone with any experience in the field.

        Strangely enough those realtors aren't returning my calls. I wonder why?

        These people are state-licensed - at least, that's what they claim. Funny, that. I'm an experienced contractor... from out of state. I guess I failed to mention that to them.

        (and yes, I did report them to the local authorities. I had one callback about a week ago, who assured me he'd look into it. After some research I found he used to work for the same local realtor I was dealing with. Not surprising, this is the same shit I was dealing with in the last state I lived in. )

        A local city councilperson confided to me not long ago that the city just doesn't have the resources to pursue these people - the agents have better lawyers than the city can afford to hire. Big surprise.

        You do mean "the impending" housing crash, yes? It's the 80s all over again, but worse :*(

        tic

    5. Re:Economy? by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      Done on a small scale, predatory lending isn't harmful to the industry (though it is, obviously, harmful to the homeowner.)

      But such an idea doesn't scale without having a serious effect on the industry. Doing this too much inflates prices in the short term, then you can't sell the house to make back the money because so many people have defaulted. You've taken your customers and made sure that they won't be customers again for 7 years, at least (length of time that such a black mark can stay on your credit score.)

        No offense, but do you see the latent hypocrisy there?

      tic

    6. Re:Economy? by Sancho · · Score: 1

      No, I don't. Perhaps you thought I was suggesting that such a practice was morally ok--I wasn't. But I was trying to look at it from a purely business side of things.

  110. Slashthink at its finest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This modded 'insightful'! Slashthink at it finest.

    1. Re:Slashthink at its finest! by gorbachev · · Score: 1

      Listen coward, I have actual data to support my reasons for supporting a bigger Government approach. Real data about the failures of Small Government, and real data about the successes of Big Government. In fact, some of it came out from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last month. I'm sure you're aware that CBO is hardly a left-wing, liberal, communist organization intent on destroying the American Way of Life (incl. the apparent "right" to pay no taxes whatsoever).

      I know you're likely to just respond with your favorite quotes of the latest Ron Paul spam about the virtues of Small Government, but quite frankly that sort of economic policy has NEVER been tested successfully anywhere. Your blind faith to the religion of Small Government is not supported by ANY empirical evidence that it actually works.

      In fact, there are ample evidence that it doesn't work, at all. Other than for rich folks, that is, for whom, I admit, it works extraordinarily well.

      I have reasons for thinking like a "Slashthinker". I would be curious to find out about your reasons for thinking otherwise. Please provide as much details as possible, and please, PLEASE leave discussing untested economical theories to the classroom. They might work there, but unless you can show that they work in the real world, I'm not really interested in a theoretical discussion. We are, after all, talking about something that would affect the well being of over 200 million people (minus the 5% at the top of the wealth pyramid, of course). They're not lab rats.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    2. Re:Slashthink at its finest! by gorbachev · · Score: 1

      I should clarify that by "Small Government" I don't mean the traditional fiscal responsibility (balanced budgets) that used to be what the Republican party was all about.

      What I mean instead is the type of Small Government that could be dragged into the bathroom and drowned in the bathtub, to borrow a phrase.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  111. Communism by Lane.exe · · Score: 1
    (1) Dissolve the legal status of corporations

    (2) Abolish the concept of private property

    (3) Seize the means of production held as corporate assets

    (4) Gift the means of production to the democratically-chosen heads of workers' and industry' unions and trade associations

    (5) Strengthen the 14th Amendment to provide that no political subdivision may abridge the rights and freedoms secured by the United States Constitution

    (6) End the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and provide for return of all servicemen and women to the citizenry

    (7) Provide for universalized healthcare and education through state run institutions, though I would permit private institutions to continue to offer these services to those that want them

    --
    IAALS.
    1. Re:Communism by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Soviet Russia, all of these things happened.

      --
      The game.
    2. Re:Communism by corbettw · · Score: 1
      You forgot one:

      (8) Find myself added to the list of assassinated Presidents.

      And I have to point out:

      (5) Strengthen the 14th Amendment to provide that no political subdivision may abridge the rights and freedoms secured by the United States Constitution One of those rights is the right to own property. Which you abolished in step 2. Welcome to hypocrisy.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:Communism by Lane.exe · · Score: 1

      I should have made a distinction between personal and real property. I only want to abolish the latter. Personal property, and all its attendant rights thereto, can stay.

      --
      IAALS.
    4. Re:Communism by corbettw · · Score: 1

      What about the Constitutional provision of being secure in our own homes? Doesn't that sort of imply ownership of real property?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Communism by Lane.exe · · Score: 1

      No. The security in your own home provision is a protection from arbitrary government intrusion. It applies even when you don't own the property so long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Fifth Amendment, on the other hand, does reference real property. Some things will have to be changed, unfortunately, but there's no real reason anyone needs to own real property privately. It should remain the property of society and put toward its most beneficial use to the community.

      --
      IAALS.
    6. Re:Communism by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Some things will have to be changed, unfortunately, but there's no real reason anyone needs to own real property privately. It should remain the property of society and put toward its most beneficial use to the community. So bureaucrats would have the legal authority to tear down your house and force you to live in some high rise, even though that's not what you want for yourself (using the theoretical "you", it's irrelevant if you personally want to live in a high rise).

      How about you let people decide for themselves how they want to live their lives, instead of using men with guns to force them all to live the way you think they should? Just leave people the hell alone. Contrary to what you may think, you do not know what's best for everyone else, and you do NOT have the right to tell them how to live.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:Communism by Lane.exe · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand communism, or at the very least, you understand the term as synonymous with Stalinist or Soviet socialism. Under communism, the community owns the means of production so that industry is directed toward the benefit of the community, not the capital-holders. There's nothing in a communist-style system of government that says that what you describe above is going to happen, or even has to happen. You're also assuming the existence of a bureaucracy, which is more akin to socialism than communism. Rather, you would be able to choose your home (much as you do now) based on the availability of homes in your community that is best suited to your needs. That is, if you're a bachelor, you don't need a large house just to yourself. Everything is set up so that individuals have freedom of individual choice up until their choices are against the best interests of the community. No one thinks they know what's best for anyone else; instead, the community comes together to do what's best for everyone. It's very democratic and makes sure that everyone's interests are represented, not just the interests of the rich and powerful.

      --
      IAALS.
    8. Re:Communism by corbettw · · Score: 1

      If you honestly think a bureaucracy won't spring up in that system, one that will dictate where and how you get to live, you've never been involved in any sort of local government. Whether it's HOAs, town councils, or county boards, you will always find some assclown who wants to feel big by telling other people what to do. What you're describing is a utopia that can not exist because of human nature.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    9. Re:Communism by Lane.exe · · Score: 1

      The "human nature" you describe is not something essential but rather something that is learned by growing up in a capitalist society.

      --
      IAALS.
    10. Re:Communism by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Yes, because communist societies the world over have completed avoided bureaucracies that dictate the conditions of people lives.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    11. Re:Communism by Lane.exe · · Score: 1

      You mean socialist. The societies you're thinking over are socialist, which is a transitory phase between capitalism and communism. I don't advocate socialism... I think we should go straight to communism.

      --
      IAALS.
  112. It's simple. Ban Islam. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While that may sound very insensitive and harsh, consider this:

    When (and I did say "when", not "if") Islam takes root in the U.S., the prospect of Islamic law trumping U.S. Constitutional law becomes very real. At that point persecution of non-Muslims will become a deadly reality that cannot be stopped.

    And this will happen much sooner than you think....

  113. I would lead by THESE TWO WORDS by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Ask Slashdot"

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    1. Re:I would lead by THESE TWO WORDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      attack iran
      attack north korea
      attack pakistan

  114. Ron Paul is a racist by coult · · Score: 1

    Ron Paul is a racist, bigot, and homophobe. Have you seen this?

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

    --

    All is Number -Pythagoras.

    1. Re:Ron Paul is a racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm ok with that. I'm interested in electing a president based on his policies, not his personal opinions. I'd rather have a constitutionalist racist, bigot, and homophobe than somebody who tries to legislate tolerance.

    2. Re:Ron Paul is a racist by Veinor · · Score: 1

      So how about how Paul wants to repeal birthright citizenship, which is part of the 14th Amendment? OK, fine, it's not part of the constitution proper. But neither is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Also, he made a rather veiled attack against gays; he wants to [prohibit] the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style. Now, this could be construed as reduction of federal funding in general, but he specifically singles out organizations that promote homosexuality.

      He also opposes a renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and thinks the Constitution is "replete with references to God", which it really isn't.

    3. Re:Ron Paul is a racist by coult · · Score: 1

      I'm ok with that. I'm interested in electing a president based on his policies, not his personal opinions. I'd rather have a constitutionalist racist, bigot, and homophobe than somebody who tries to legislate tolerance. How do you know his policies won't be influenced by his personal opinions? Given that he claims his newsletters were written without him knowing what was in them, how do you know he won't appoint people who push a racist, bigoted political agenda and claim he "didn't know" what they were doing?

      And who exactly is this tolerance-legislating straw man you put up? As if somehow we have only two choices (1) Crazy Racist Ron Paul, or (2) unnamed candidate who "legislates tolerance".

      --

      All is Number -Pythagoras.

    4. Re:Ron Paul is a racist by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Repealing birthright citizenship has nothing to do with race and everything to do with immigration. This is the reason Paul opposes birthright citizenship. He calls it a "perverse incentive," a relic of the past, and a bad thing for modern America. As an American, I would be very sad to see such a noble principle go, BUT I understand the need for that sacrifice.

      I don't know where you got the homophobic thing. The bill you linked appears to reduce taxes and reform or end the draft, which is probably why Paul supported it with no cosponsors. The alternative lifestyle bit sounds like a nasty rider. Moreover, why should the Fed. gov't provide funds to any organization which promotes any sort of lifestyle? Waaaay outside the bounds of what the gov't needs to or ought to be doing.

      In your link about references to God, he's talking about the Declaration of Independence and the constitution, and it's unclear whether he means the drafters or the documents. The former is most certainly true, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, along with a scolding for poor sentence construction.

    5. Re:Ron Paul is a racist by Veinor · · Score: 1

      My point about birthright citizenship is that he wants to repeal it, which can only be done by repealing the 14th Amendment. He also wants to repeal the 16th amendment, which provides for an income tax. So I don't think you could say he supports a return to the Constitution when he wants to get rid of parts of it.

      What about a group that you think deserves government funding, and happens to run a pro-gay event on the side? Even if they're 100% sure that no federal funds go to that, they're still ineligible for it. Also, I find it striking that the bill only forbids federal funding for organizations that specifically promote the gay lifestyle; if he didn't want funding going to organizations that promote any lifestyle, then why didn't he say so?

      Also, I'm almost positive that the word "both" in "both replete with references to God" implies that he's talking about two things, which could only be the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There were more than two drafters. Regardless, he also makes the hilariously wrong statement, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America." In the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 reads, in part "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was written by John Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.

  115. First Order of Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ship former president G. W. Bush to a North Korean prison

  116. Nominate Experts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put engineers and scientists in control of the FCC, FDA, USDA, OSHA and the CSPC. And cuss a lot on live tv in hopes of fighting censorship.

  117. A few questions about your top 10 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Require all able-bodied citizens between ages 18 and 35 (male and female) to undergo military bootcamp. Would people diagnosed with significant mental disabilities, such as Asperger syndrome, be considered able-bodied under your suggestion? And people would receive veterans' benefits for any injury sustained in basic training, right?

    Abolish the two-party system Which precondition of Duverger's law would you repeal?

    Require that any immigrants that enter the US to be able to speak English prior to being granted citizenship. To what level of proficiency? And would your policy prefer one dialect over another?

    Allow high school students to pick all of their classes throughout their 4-year High School education. What good is a curriculum of only basketbology and footbology?
    1. Re:A few questions about your top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Would people diagnosed with significant mental disabilities, such as Asperger syndrome, be considered able-bodied under your suggestion? And people would receive veterans' benefits for any injury sustained in basic training, right?
      Able-Bodied would be considered anyone that is mentally stable and anyone who does not have any permanent physical conditions (missing appendeges, weak bones/joints, etc.) Essentially, healthy people that don't have any physical or mental complications.

      Which precondition of Duverger's law would you repeal?


      There would be no more parties. No Democrats, no republicans, no green party, no libertarian...nothing. People would no longer be able to vote along party lines, because their would be no parties. You would simply listen to the proposed policies and opinions of the canidates, and go from there. Granted, this could get complicated very quickly, but it's not like the system we have now is simple either.

      To what level of proficiency? And would your policy prefer one dialect over another?
      Proficient to the point if they are a witness to a crime, they can describe what they saw. I'm not looking for them to be able to write a novel; i'm looking for them to be able to converse in English. I personally think it's a fair request; like I said, I wouldn't expect to be granted citizenship to a country unless I could speak the primary language to the point of being able to survive on a day-to-day basis. As far as dialect goes, that all depends on where they are trying to move to. Once you are a citizen, you are a citizen...you (of course) wouldn't be required to learn the dialects from many different places...hell, I've lived in America my whole life and can't undersand what some people say.

      What good is a curriculum of only basketbology and footbology?
      There are plenty of people that are interested in more than just that. Not everyone is interested in sports. Besides, the curriculum itself is one of the other things I would change (the largest change being empowering teachers to teach how they see fit...they have to teach the same material, but it would be up to them HOW to teach it based on their classes individual needs...this alone would raise the data retention rate amongst students exponentially.)
    2. Re:A few questions about your top 10 by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Sorry, didn't answer your whole first question. Any major injury sustained (excluding things like minor bruises, etc.) would be taken care of and paid for. The purpose of putting people through boot camp is two-fold. 1. Try to encourage them to lead active lives (once they see how they look and feel at the end of boot camp) and 2. train people to defend themselves against any kind of attacker, whether it's a mugger or an invading country.

    3. Re:A few questions about your top 10 by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Essentially, healthy people that don't have any physical or mental complications. That leaves out most of the women I've dated over the years. They all had some serious mental "complications". Seriously, though, what's the definition of "complication" in that sentence?

      There would be no more parties. How would you accomplish this, without trampling on people's right to freedom of association? Or would that be gone, too?

      There are plenty of people that are interested in more than just that. Not everyone is interested in sports./quote.

      Yeah, but some of them are, and you didn't answer the question about how you would require high schoolers to take other classes? When you allow students to set their own curriculum, how many will skip hard classes like math, chemistry, or even world history, and just study sports and sex ed?
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:A few questions about your top 10 by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Try to encourage them to lead active lives (once they see how they look and feel at the end of boot camp)

      They will feel like death warmed over. Any sudden increase in your physical activity will do that. It takes months, if not years for your body to catch up. So, unless you plan on keeping them on the camp for multiple years, you're wasting your time - or rather, their time - especially since the people being freed from the camp are going to celebrate their freedom by avoiding everything which reminds them of it.

      I speak this as a citizen of Finland, which has a conscript army and thus mandatory boot camps. I've never before or after been in such sorry condition than a year after I left there.

      train people to defend themselves against any kind of attacker, whether it's a mugger or an invading country.

      Would this be the same mugger who has also attended these mandatory camps and learned the same lessons ? And which one do you expect to invade you - Mexico or Canada ?

      This is of course all ignoring the facts that mandatory camps are of extremely questinable legality to begin with, restricting the liberty of the people forced to attend to them just because you think it's good for them, and that trying to herd the whole population there would propably cause a (quite justified, IMHO) rebellion.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  118. Mod Me Up! by spacemky · · Score: 1

    I'd do whatever Ron Paul would do!!!

    --
    640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
  119. Get Priorities in Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Job Description - President of USA, 2009-2012

    Step 1: Kick off the long range projects first (let everybody know changes are in order)

    1. Streamline Nuclear Plant Process and get more new technology plants in the pipeline

    2. Provide tax rebates for people to get energy audits and rebates for performing the 1-3 top priority item(s)
    Restore tax rebates for energy saving devices.

    3. Cut back / eliminate on agricultural subsidies payable to corporations whose total assets > $10 or 20 million* to preserve small farms and cut corporate welfare. *The breakpoint between "big small farms" and "small corporate monsters" should be clear or reasonably subject to arbitrary definition.

    4. Attack the healthcare problem by requiring all employers to provide health insurance at the rate of $2 per hour to go toward health coverage for the person employed or family of same. Employer can either provide insurance or pay the $2 per hour into the fund. Part time / full time makes no difference. Money goes to fund, person free to select approved coverage from private insurers to be acquired with that fund. Equivalent to raising minimum wage by $2 but inflation will result in that anyway sooner than anyone can imagine. Result will be that hospitals will be able to reduce rates because everybody is covered and they won't have to recover costs for charity cases that they now cover from the goodness of their hearts and the money of the insured. Number of uninsured will decrease, costs will go down for all, and governement out of pocket will decrease substantially. US products will be more competitive on the world market and less work will go offshore. Result will be that everybody has coverage, employers can provide better coverage if they choose, and the taxpayers would probably spend the minimum they would under any alternative.

    Then tackle the rats nest of other problems:

    1. Get Out of Iraq and restore the reputation of the USA

    2. Balance the Budget. Period. Restore the dollar to credibility and then figure out how to ultimately deal with social security. There is still time if people decide to solve the problem and are willing to use a bit of discipline.

    3. Start very widely and publicly discussing and defining what a carbon tax would look like and where it would be effective to spend it - put the world on notice that we are serious. Bring all the petro-coal-energy lobbyists out of the woodwork. Introduce legislation to implement the best ideas coming out of the open public discussion. Start pricing oil pumped from federal lands / coastal areas at a % of the price per barrel for all oil/gas pumped. Our oil is a limited resource and our country should benefit from what is left of it. Restore the strategic reserve and this time, don't sell it off a few years later in preparation for the next energy crisis. Rest assured, price volatility will require a significant reserve just to maintain order in the post-peak oil market.

    4. Require all political / issue advertising to identify who paid for it and require the main (>$1000) contributors of the organization be published for all groups.

    5. Require all government employees who leave their posts for work in the private sector (revolving door) to register as lobbyists and report all meetings with congress/senate. Require all lobbyists to register and report their meetings also. Period. Remember, our employers get to say who visits us at work and even makes them sign in, maybe it should be the same for people we hire in Washington to represent us.

    6. Convene a biparitsan group to very publicly and widely discuss how to restore our freedoms that were taken away in the last 8 years. Introduce legislation to correct the excesses and, if necessary, constitutional amendments to prevent it ever happening again.

    6. Other duties as assigned and required :-)

  120. Rolling out of the country? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Call a few of those rick folks I made friends with Which rick folks are you talking about?
  121. secession by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1

    I would grant every land or home owner the right to remove himself from the United States jurisdiction. Meaning one could, merely by asking, chose to ignore and be ignored by the US government on his property.

    This has far far reaching implications.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:secession by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      This has far far reaching implications.

      Agreed. Especially when the neighbor east of me, who has annexed, and the neighbor west of me, who as also annexed, decide to go to war and enter my yard (US territory) to reach their enemy's. What do I do? Does the US Army now make housecalls? Or perhaps I get to borrow a stealth bomber!

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    2. Re:secession by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Whoops, replace 'annexed' with 'seceded'.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

  122. I would build a high speed train. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would build a high speed train that serviced the largest cities in America
    with 10 minute stops every hour along each route. I would make it the most
    technologically advanced that I could putting scientists and engineers to work
    for years. I would run it on the most advanced fuels and make it as green as
    possible. I would put people to work on the environmental aspects right away and
    would put the the train into design over multiple years during which the land
    would be bought. This would spur speculation on land and locations for new
    businesses. Services would grow just from the building of the train and its route.
    Make it as easy as riding the elevated train in Chicago. A few years ago we asked
    ourselves "What if electronic communication was almost free?" now lets ask ourselves
    "What if transportation was almost free?" Maybe wind farms would be the proper way
    to energize this train who knows. But, it would be a great way to get people to work.

    Eisenhower built the expressway. Lets do the same thing and get people thinking working
    and growing by building a high speed train.

    EML.

  123. The question is not whether he is a racist by Zeinfeld · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The question at issue here is not just whether Ron Paul is a racist personally but what his stand on racism as a poltician is. Given a choice between someone who is a bigott but votes for civil rights and someone who is not a racist but panders to people who are with racism friendly policies and guestures I will take the bigott.

    Ron Paul published the racist newsletter in his name for over a decade. It is a hate rag, pure and simple. It is not only racist and homophobic, it is anti-semitic.

    I expect politicians to take a stand against racisim and bigotry. Pandering to racism such as appearing at CCC meetings and pretending its not a euphemism for the KKK or making coded references to seggregation such as 'states rights' or kicking your campaign off at Bob Jones U. or Racism county fair, its all functional racism.

    How would you think about a candidate who is 'against terrorism' but gives money to terrorist causes?

    The newsletter was a southern strategy attempt to mine the racist vote. Ron Paul put it out in his name. That makes him a racist.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    1. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by darjen · · Score: 2, Insightful
    2. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The race card is almost always played by people who wish to short circuit debate on genuine issues and cut straight to an emotional response designed to override logic and reason when frankly, there are much more important issues at stake in this next election. The race issue in our society has already been well addressed and it has been for at least a decade now if not longer. In my own experience it is rare to uncover the types of institutionalized discriminations that used to be part of the system and if you do experience that sort of discrimination then you have adequate methods of redress and relief via the courts. If you are trying to eliminate all bigotry then you are truly wasting your time. The test of a free society with free speech is the allowance of speech that we may disagree with or which represents a minority point of view. Discrimination is one thing, but free speech, even bigoted speech, should be answered with speech, not banned out of hand. Kicking off one's campaign at Bob Jones U or referring to 'states rights' does not make one a racist, one can speak to groups, even groups with values you don't agree with, without becoming part of that group or endorsing their message. In fact, there may be many groups which support a candidate or run ads for a candidate, but that does not mean that the candidate endorses or is even connected with those groups. Why do you think that candidates generally include the line, "I am candidate name and I approve of this message." in their ads? People should be more careful about labeling someone a racist, that is a serious charge and it is, more often than not, unfounded. Ron Paul is NOT a racist.

    3. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by Zeinfeld · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

      OK so where is the ADL saying that his Zionist conspiracy drivel is not anti-semitic or John Aravosis saying that the homophobic drivel is not gay baiting?

      We kinda discovered that people looking into other people's souls and pronouncing them pure is not an effective means of quality control on politicians. Didn't work when Bush tried it with Putin.

      Don't look at the man, look at what he says and does, in particular look at what he supports and who he seeks support from.

      Ron Paul published racist screeds for decades. He might as well have joined the Klan. He want's to be President. That means that the bar is rather higher than 'not proven to have racist beliefs'

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    4. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by darjen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who am I supposed to believe - you, or the NAACP president who has known Paul for 20 years? Tough one there, but I think I'll choose the latter.

      It's unfortunate that RP allowed his name to be used for such drivel. He should have paid more attention to what people were writing. But that doesn't give you any license to continue smearing him when he has publicly repudiated those views many times.

    5. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison Planet? You want me to take Alex Jones' word on who is and who is not a racist?

      lmao

    6. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Informative
      Why do you think that candidates generally include the line, "I am candidate name and I approve of this message." in their ads?

      Because it is a legal requirement that they do so. mcCain Feingold introduced that requirement to stop the practice of anonymous attack ads.

      Discrimination is one thing, but free speech, even bigoted speech, should be answered with speech, not banned out of hand. Kicking off one's campaign at Bob Jones U or referring to 'states rights' does not make one a racist, one can speak to groups, even groups with values you don't agree with, without becoming part of that group or endorsing their message.

      If you have a forum you can invite others without necessarily endorsing their message. But that is not what Bush and Reagan did. They choose the forums they did in order to send an express but coded message of support for those racist institutions.

      Whether Ron Paul wrote the articles that appeared under his name is frankly irrelevant. The President of the Oxford Union can invite Gerry Adams or David Irving to speak if he chooses without necessarily endorsing his position. But publishing an written by one of them in a newsletter that only carries his name and has no indication that it is an outside contribution is an express endorsement of the position.

      I have yet to hear if Ron Paul is or is not repudiating the positions in the newsletter. If he does not repudiate them he is a racist, lets not waste any more time arguing the point. If he does repudiate the positions we should be told what else he is likely to be repudiating in the future.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    7. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's unfortunate that RP allowed his name to be used for such drivel. He should have paid more attention to what people were writing.

      And so we want a person for President who can't even be bothered to look at what people put out under his own name? Sounds a bit too much like the current one for my tastes.

      --
      That is all.
    8. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you black? If not, your experience doesn't count for shit.

    9. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 1

      Google Jews for Ron Paul, and Gays for Ron Paul. Don't make us do all your work for you, since you obviously haven't done any research.

      --
      Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
    10. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 1

      LMAO there's an MP3 from the interview, in the guys own voice. Oh look another asshat.

      --
      Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
    11. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you can point to are a few words at most in a newsletter that went out for a decade. Those few words were not written by Paul. There was no pattern to the words in issue after issue. The person that wrote some of the worst stuff was kicked off the newsletter by Paul. Paul has apologized for them and accepted the responsibility for those words.

      Being against the racist policies of Israel doesn't make you anti-semitic.

      You don't have anything.

    12. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by tic!lock · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what any public figure believes or states publicly in this country anymore, there will always be someone who will find something to fault them on and put spin on. In this case, it's calling another public figure a racist. Easy spin... It's not exactly a new one. I remember it from forty years ago when I was a kid.

        The problem isn't really our candidates, it's people who let the arguments go this far and yet KEEP GIVING THEM AMMO TO ARGUE ABOUT.

        We're so far down that slippery slope that no amount of rationalizing is going to heal anything.

        People arguing like all of you are here are just arguing who should be in command of the sinking ship as the water rises around your ankles.

        It disgusts me, and yes, I'm leaving as soon as I can. Go ahead and have your irrelevant adolescent disagreements; the people whose lives you are really fucking up are your kids and grandkids. It's a big planet and others will take your place after the grownups leave. I'm sure the chinese will have no regrets taking all of the property they've bought up, after you're all gone.

        Idiots. I used to think it was a wonder the human race survived the nuclear arms race; now I wonder whether or not we'll survive the political spin race.

      tic

    13. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to use paragraphs. You write like a nigger.

  124. If I were president? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well the first thing that I would do would be to promote myself to President of the World, and rule with an iron fist--literally. I'd don an iron glove, and push buttons on my rule-the-world-omatic.

    Then, I'd do two girls at the same time...from Soviet Russia, and then wrestle Natalie Portman in a tub of hot grits.

  125. No question! by Xaroth · · Score: 1

    Easy. I'd crush those puny earthling senators and representatives beneath my mighty iron fist! GWARHARHARHAR!

  126. Form a colilition government. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    I'd organize real debates about the issues, inviting multiple participants from various backgrounds to try and completely understand the issues. Then and only then would I do anything. I'd also teleconference with the 50 governors to get their input on the challenges each state faces, and what if any role the federal government should have. So its not so much what I would do but how I would do it.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  127. End Fedral Income Tax... by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

    1) End Fedral Income Tax on earned income

    2) End double taxation

    3) Remind that a single branch of government sits above all three. The People.

    4) Reduce all spending on the fedral level to a minimum.

    5) Reduce the army to only defending US soil

    6) Make it extremely easy to fire government employees.

    7) Take no pay.

    8) Create mobile HQ and work from each of the 50 states for 90 days each.

    9) Return money and power to states, but still help them remind as united as ever

    10) Return to the gold standard, making our currency golden again.

    11) Put lenders of any kind on notice that people are more important than their bottom lines, and will be treated that way.

    12) Most likely, I'd be shoot, if so skip 13.

    13) Resign. Leave them wanting more.

    14) ...

    --
    -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
  128. Top ten things by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Everyone who ever picked on me as a kid would receive all expense paid accommodations in Gitmo.

    2. A Manhatten Project level of effort to develop realistic sexbots.

    3. Presidential Security: Bye-bye Secret Service. Hello Mord'Sith.

    4. New Marine units composed of the Islamic extremists worst nightmare: superbutch lesbians locked into eternal PMS synchronization. Name? The Crimson Tide.

    5. The immediate carpet bombing of Hollywood.

    6. Churches? Tax 'em, and require every claim they make about their deities be backed up by documented proof.

    7. Abortions would be free for all at sidewalk kiosks and in malls. No age limit. No question asked.

    8. Power? Breeder reactors (and other advanced types) that double as desalination plants. More power? Gentetically bred giant superhampsters.

    9. Lawyers who lose frivolous lawsuit would be able to keep their license to practice, but they'd have to fight a lion using nothing but a spork.

    10. Everytime I get something like "Slow down, Cowboy. It has been X minutes since you last posted!" where X is anything greater than 2, a Slashdot editor is waterboarded.

    1. Re:Top ten things by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      9. Lawyers who lose frivolous lawsuit would be able to keep their license to practice, but they'd have to fight a lion using nothing but a spork.


      9.5) If lawyer survives, sue him for cruelty to animals, and possession of illegal weapons.
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:Top ten things by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "4. New Marine units composed of the Islamic extremists worst nightmare: superbutch lesbians locked into eternal PMS synchronization. Name? The Crimson Tide."

      But since they are only really effective for 1 week/month, you will need Crimson Tide Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta. House them separately and deploy them in rotation. 24/7/365 PMS goodness.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    3. Re:Top ten things by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

      "4. New Marine units composed of the Islamic extremists worst nightmare: superbutch lesbians locked into eternal PMS synchronization. Name? The Crimson Tide."

      A friend of mine comes pretty close to that. She's a rather butch lesbian who used to be in the 101st Airborne. One Thanksgiving at her place she brought out a photo album with a picture she took in basic...I think it was basic. It was a "family" picture, as in all the women in the unit who were lesbian and willing to be in the picture. It was around about a third of the women.

    4. Re:Top ten things by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, you need different teams in constant rotation.

      Or come up with a drug that keeps them in *constant* PMS during war time.

      The horror... the horror...

    5. Re:Top ten things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No age limit.
      Is there a rash of elderly women getting abortions?

    6. Re:Top ten things by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      2. A Manhatten Project level of effort to develop realistic sexbots.

      . . .

      11. A tutor to help you learn to spell Manhattan?

    7. Re:Top ten things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Everyone who ever picked on me as a kid would receive all expense paid accommodations in Gitmo.

      This from someone who's handle is "Quiet Desperation"?

      I'll assume your handle is a Floyd reference and not a cry for help. :-)

  129. Two Words by scudco · · Score: 1

    Metric System

  130. get killed. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Get assassinated after requesting Kennedy's assassination secrets published.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  131. Well, not much, but if I was dictator I would... by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 1
    Reduce the social security burden by giving federal land to recipients as a partial one-time buy-out. Then I would phase out social security over time.

    Pass the Fair Tax amendment. Ammend the 16th amendment to say this is the only way the Federal Goverment can collect taxes, and set a hard limit of 15%.

    Ammend the interstate commerce clause so that it is spelled out that the federal government only has the authority to make regular instead of regulate interstate commerce.

    Phase out over time all programs that the federal government is involved in that do not fit under it's enumerated powers. Which is most of them. This would also mean an end to the war on drugs, since drug legalization is a state level issue. Ditto for abortion and a number of other things the Federal government has decided is in it's pervue.

    Change our voting system to use range voting. Bring back the ammendment that only allowed land owners to vote for Senators.

    Pass an amendment that all states must have easy to meet and uniform guidelines for different parties and peoples to be on their ballots. No more allowing the Dems and Reps to raise the bar for competition.

    Get rid of the McCain-Feingold act (spelling?). Ditto for Sarnes-Boxley.

    Require that any entity with more than 100x the assets of a target it is sueing pay that target's court costs. Target is only liable to pay these back if the target loses. This would prevent large corporations from destroying freedom of individuals by simply threatening to sue them. If the case is bogus or weak, the individual is much more likely to fight it.

    If an individual or entity engages in 3+ frivolous lawsuits in a 10 year period, they lose the right to sue anybody for any reason for five years.

    Require that Jury Nullification be brought back as something that the jury is instructed on and allowed to do as per the Constitution. Prosecutors are allowed right now to plea bargain - that needs to stop since it is also unconstitutional. Finally, the jury would not be allowed to be questioned by the defense and prosecution. You get what you get.

    Formalize the right of the states to secede from the union.

    Extricate ourselves from the vast number of overseas military entanglements. Basically pull out of Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Go back to a Monroe doctrine approach.

    Close the borders with Mexico, but I would make it easy for Mexicans and their families to emmigrate and become citizens. I would require that one or two in the family learn some English, and they would need to learn a little bit about the Constitution and their rights. An Ellis Island approach basically.

    Get rid of the 'qualified investor' laws. Those are unconstitutional and bad for our economy anyway.

    Scale copyright law back to a sane level term and usage wise. Require that patents come with a working prototype like they used to. Get rid of software patents and business process patents. Disallow gene and other 'discovery' patents.

    Come up with a more formalized approach to dealing with large scale negative externalities. That is one thing government should be involved in. This would require a constitutional amendment as it would be an expansion of powers, and it would have to be limited to dealing with large scale externalities that had significant impact out of the individual states. (Large scale pollution of the air, water, etc.)

    Well, I gotta get back to work, but that is a partial list. I'm sure lots of people will think I'm nuts, but basically I just want a return to a more Federalist nation with fewer foreign entanglements and a limited government.

  132. Two chicks at the same time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey I'm the freakin President! Why the hell not?

  133. I arrived at the WH the first day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with my list of candidates for Cabinet positions, thanked the Secret Service driver, saluted the Navy guy, entered the building and walked towards the Oval Office.

    Then Bill Clinton appeared out of nowhere! He pointed his finger at me and started saying things like "Who said you could come in here, and why are you getting a free ride? What have you accomplished for this country? What about that sexist joke you emailed that reached 30 people in March 1998? Isn't it a fact that you used recreational drugs 15 years ago?" as the TV cameras were rolling.

    So much for that.

  134. If I were President... by napalm684 · · Score: 1

    It would be mandatory for all companies that could support it to allow their employees to work from home or do 4 day work weeks so that fuel consumption is reduced!

    --
    Another quality poast, now how about some cake?
  135. I would fix the education system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By allowing merit-based pay for teachers and by giving principals the discretion to hand out funds to the best-performing individuals at a school.

  136. Bear for President platform by TheOldBear · · Score: 1
    Or Bear for [benevolent] dictator:

    • Encourage true 'energy independence'. For baseload, replace coal and oil fired steam plants with nuclear power plants. For peaking loads, continue with best available combustion technology [Gas turbine]. For high energy density fuels [hydrocarbons] allow enhanced exploration [gulf and atlantic coasts], and waste to oil processes [thermal reformation, depolymerization]. High density fuels are needed for transportation [aircraft, ship, automobile] and for locations without sufficient infrastructure
    • Institute Pournelle's series of prizes to award space travel and settlement milestones. This would encourage reusable orbital transport, power satellites, lunar settlement and other long term goals
    • Eliminate the Departments of Education and Homeland Security. Many other departments and agencies should be reduced drastically. It would also be nice if the State department occasionally considered acting to the benefit of US Citizens.
    • Invest in long term basic research, including providing tax incentives for long term research. Perhaps this will spawn 21st century 'Skonk Works' and Bell labs equivalents.
    • Fix immigration. Streamline the process for legal immigration. Provide physical barriers where needed [the border fence]. Provide severe dis-incentives to discourage employment of illegal aliens.
    --
    Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.
  137. Irony by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

    As I read the comments, the quote-of-the-day at the bottom of the page now reads "Now I am depressed.."

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  138. Some things.. by Another+AC · · Score: 1

    1. Declare emergency martial law, and call the military into all major cities.
    2. Disband the Legislative and the Judicial branches.
    3. Make all media state-controlled.
    4. ????
    5. Dictate!

  139. Ron Paul by ArikTheRed · · Score: 1

    I'd appoint Ron Paul as Vice President, then resign.

    1. Re:Ron Paul by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      My first act would be to declare Ron Paul and enemy combatant. If anyone mouthed off, I'd declare THEM enemy combatants, too!

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  140. JUSTICE!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put all adulterers - past present and future - in the stocks for 24 hours. Have a bit of fun. Then having got *that* outta my system LEGALLY I'd resign and go back to my day job as a better adjusted member of society.

  141. Skin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shoot the lawyers! More skin on HBO! L.H. Puttgrass signing off and heading for the tub!"

  142. Stoopid Hippies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Invade Iran 2. Remove business regulation that has a stranglehold on our economy 3. Cut government spending 4. Cut taxes, focusing on unfair taxes, such as capital gains and the Death Tax, that focus on stealing citizen's wealth. 5. Keep America safe from Terrorism. 6. Stop the government subversion of our family values, and strengthen traditional families in the eyes our our society. 7. Ensure that Freedom of Religion continues to have a role in our lives.

  143. I'd go nuclear. by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
    Not just nuclear power plants, but nuclear rockets - e.g. this one. (The good tech stuff starts in section 7.) With that, we can lift a thousand tons into orbit in a completely reusable and non-polluting craft that even eliminates not only its own nuclear waste but can dispose of waste generated on Earth, too. Using those, we can put up solar-power satellites that send their energy down to Earth in the form of microwaves. (If you've ever played Sim City... forget it. It doesn't work that way, it can be done very safely with large margins of safety. See here especially the section on "Safety".) With the lower launch costs of nuclear rockets, we can make the U.S. a net energy exporter, in time.

    This has plenty of military applications, as well. Space is the ultimate "high ground" and a dominant U.S. presence in space should have obvious strategic benefits.

    Of course, at the same time we can work on more efficient techniques for utilizing the oil we do need. Cars with better mileage (improving our overall fuel efficiency by less than 3mpg would eliminate our need to import oil from the Persian Gulf), more efficient means of generating and using fertilizers, a bit of thought about how we use plastics, etc. Even better, we can sell the technology we develop to other parts of the world - further reducing world demand for oil, driving the price down. The lower the price of oil, the less funds the Islamist fanatics have to work with, and the less of a threat they pose. (Reducing oil prices also impacts people like Hugo Chavez, as a bonus.)

    (Not that, realistically, Islamist fanatics pose an existential threat to the United States. They can harm us, certainly, and even cause a relatively large amount of damage, sometimes. That's not the same thing as posing a threat to the existence of the United States. For perspective, more than 30 times as many American citizens have died in traffic accidents since 9/11 than have died in 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined. Obviously I'd focus a lot more on preparedness for terrorist attacks rather than just going insane and throwing out civil liberties to try to prevent them. That'd help against natural disasters like Katrina, too.)

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:I'd go nuclear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Islamist fanatics pose an existential threat to the United States. They can harm us,
      > certainly, and even cause a relatively large amount of damage, sometimes.

      You are totally incorrect. Islamist fanatics can't really hurt you. Ok there was 9/11.
      But admit it, 9/11 smells like an inside Job? Who demolished WTC 7? An invisible airplane maybe?

      But I have to agree with you. Islamist fanatics can really hurt the Ziofacists in Israel.
      And remember you americans are owned by the Jews. Hear, your master is calling...

      have fun moron!

  144. Fetch by MoparMark · · Score: 1

    I'd bring the troops home and give NASA half the annual war budget a year, point to a rock in the sky, and say, "Fetch!" If we're going to spend gobs of money on something, lets spend it on something that'll put loads of people to work and technologically advance this country.

  145. What I'd do, and why I'm not President by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

    I'd work to pass a bill allowing for the "None of the Above" item on all ballots. I'd work toward term limits, and limit the retirement benefits of politicians who have served. Of course, no senator would want to vote himself/herself out of cushy retirement and a cushy job, so I suppose I would have to release the flying monkeys as enforcers. More likely, though, is the notion of nobody voting me in.

    --
    Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  146. Just one idea of many by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

    I'd give Americans a goal: Energy independence within ten years.

    Even a failure would go a long way in stabilizing and/or jump-starting the economy, curbing global warming, and keeping our citizens from funding terror indirectly.

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  147. A few issues I'd work on: by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

    Iraq: Work with Congress and the Joint Chiefs to establish a realistic goal-oriented roadmap (NOT a timeline) for withdrawal. The idea would be to tell the Iraqis--both our friends and enemies--exactly what we plan to do and we has to be accomplished for us to do it. Start with some easy goals so that they can see that we follow through with it and will do what we promise.

    I'm opposed to a mindless, hasty pullout of troops. I don't think we should have gone there in the first place, but we did,we made the mess, and leaving at a specific time regardless of what is going on there won't help anyone.

    Environment: I certainly don't want to trample all over businesses and the economy, but we need to take the lead on working toward a clean, sustainable environment. Fuel efficiency, CO2 output reductions, and general air/water quality would be my main concerns. I would stay away from lobby groups from either side in the pursuit of the best answers and bring in real experts on the field--both scientists and economists--to find reasonable solutions.

    Education: No Child Left Behind would go away IMMEDIATELY. The idea of paying teachers according to the performance of the students just allows the students to maliciously fail tests. They do it already, thinking it will hurt the teacher somehow. Instead, I'd push for higher salaries for teachers and more successful disciplinary actions. Administrators often fail to support teachers, leaving them unable to keep problem kids under control and disrupting the entire classroom. It also needs to be said that a LOT of problems in schools exist because they are brought there from home. And of course ineffective teachers need to be drummed out as quickly as possible.

    Social programs: Trim the fat. There are a lot of social programs that are redundant, inefficient, or completely ineffective. Get rid of those that don't work, increase those that do. The goal should be to lift up citizens so that they can stand on their own two feet, not lean on the government for most of their lives.

    Taxes: A consumption (sales) tax seems like the best idea to me. Flat rate, taxed according to spending rather than income, and can be set up to exclude those things which are necessities of life so that the poor who barely make ends meet don't pay much, if any.

    Immigration: It's unrealistic to think we can round up and eject 11,000,000 illegals, or however many there are today. The best compromise I see here is to give them a 12-18 month window to register as "undocumented" and get the process started to be here legally. Anyone not registered after that window is summarily ejected from the country. On top of that, I would seek to make it easier for people to come and go between here and Mexico via a new treaty with Mexico so that people there don't feel the need to be smuggled across packed into trucks in the middle of the desert. The idea is to be able to document and track as many people as we can; that's going to require compromise to make it work.

    Gun ownership: I would be okay with requiring a license to purchase a handgun. The purpose would be to ensure that handguns can be easily traced, making them harder to use in the commission of a crime without being caught. I would consider that as falling under "well regulated" in the second amendment. Beyond that, I don't see a need to so tightly control rifles and shotguns; their role in crime is far smaller. Don't register them, don't license them. This disarms the "they're going to take away our guns using that list" argument some of the gun nuts use.

    Just to flesh out the idea, it would go something like this: you'd take a basic gun safety class, spend some time on a range, and pass a written test to get a license. Just like you have to do before we let you drive on the road legally. Every time you buy a gun, you present your license, it's scanned, and the gun is tied to your license number by its serial number. Private party transfers can be done free of charge at any gun shop or police department. A stolen gun must be registered as stolen.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  148. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by iabervon · · Score: 1

    I think it's a bad plan to get assassinated right after being elected, since you don't take office for a while yet. Also, people usually don't get buried for three days after dying. Oh, and you can't get elected on a Friday; people vote on a Tuesday and the electors cast electoral votes on a Monday. If you win the 2016 election, however, you can get inaugurated on a Friday, which will have to do.

  149. transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd work on some executive orders (no congressional interaction required) to force executive branch decision-making to occur in plain view of the public by publishing minutes of meetings, reports, etc. Naturally this would have to exclude, for example, most information about our intelligence agencies, but at least would provide us more transparency with departments such as DHS immigration policies, environmental policy-making, and the Federal Elections Commission (think electronic voting systems). All of this government information is ours, so I simply don't understand the fact that we can't see it. I'd say that's a set of objectives very in-keeping with the slashdot crowd's biases.

  150. testers by scryes · · Score: 1
    Some of the things I come to think about. Most of them are the same as Kucinich talks about. Sort of ranked from high to low priority.
    • Revoke the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    • Abolish death penalty.
    • Repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.
    • Free education from kindergarten to university.
    • Care for the environment. Focus on clean and renewable energy sources.
    • High wealth tax and no tax for people with less then a certain income.
    • Legalize abortions.
    • Legalize same-sex marriage.
  151. Sweet! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Wonder how I became President of the US as a Canadian Citizen.

    Annex the USA into Canada, creating the new province of "South Canada".

    Wake up and realize that wasn't such a good idea.

    Sell South Canada... to say... the Russians! :)

    Profit!!!

  152. My platform by spiderbitendeath · · Score: 1

    I would push for the removal of any law that violates our constitutional rights. Along with requirements for government agencies to be audited by the UN for violations of human rights, and US Constitutional rights. Any agency found in violation would be given a short time to provide justifiable reasons for the violations. If none can be found, they would lose funding.

    I would demand all US troops be brought back to the US. I would then request a meeting with the leaders of China and Russia. I would try to work out a treaty that would have all three countries working together to keep the peace in the world, cause we really can't do it alone, if at all. If I thought we needed to go to war, it would be to places like Darfur, where people are being slaughtered in genocide.

    I would try to work with the leaders of Native American nations, to bring them representation in our government, help bring them recognition and respect of their heritages, and build treaties that help protect their heritage, without trying to take their land, or their freedom.

    I would try to get the other nations of the American continents, North and South, to form a sort of commonwealth. Working together to setup a universal system with all the countries on both continents to provide a means where the people of them can travel between them with little worry.
    I would work to make it cheaper for companies to operate here in the US, well setting a standard minimum wage that people can actually live on. Well also creating certain restrictions on the hiring of foreign workers. Like limits on what percentage of your work force can be foreign workers. Provide incentives to hire US workers only.

    I would work hard at developing a health care system similar to Britains. One where you don't have to worry if you can afford medical help when you need it. Everyone deserves access to medical care, without special requirements and restrictions. They deserve to not have life saving care denied because the insurance company thinks they don't need it. I would work to eliminate the extortion raquet of the insurance companies.

    --
    Sometimes when I'm working on projects things disappear, I suspect gremlins.
  153. lolz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the its-got-what-plants-crave dept. Yeah! It's got electrolytes!
  154. NIT by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

    Implement Friedman's negative income tax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

  155. I'd manage by walking the earth by caywen · · Score: 1

    Supposing I immersed myself for decades in learning foreign affairs, government, economics, history, and executive management, and mastered issues of race, culture, and religion, the environment, and pretty much everything else, I would walk the earth like Kane. Seriously tho, I would invest $50B to $100B over 5 years for energy independence research. I would also put $10B per year into high efficiency solar panels that feed into power grids. I would make our kids' education 16 years instead of 12. I would also make private schools more profitable based on college entrance results - schools sending more kids to better schools get a bigger subsidy. National security? Bah, I'd hand that over to Google to fix.

  156. If i were president, by Another+AC · · Score: 1

    If i were president
    I'd make sure all the money spent
    Onnnnnnnn, good things
    I wouldn't have no lint in my pocket
    I'd rock it rock it i'd shock it
    I would not jock the fact that there are
    Rich people in the world because yo i got a girl
    And she needs new clothes and i need new sneakers
    And that's all i know
    If i were president, if i were president
    If i were president, if i were president!

    If i was president (what would you do?)
    I would not carry, oh no spare change
    I would just rearrange, the whole government structure
    Cause there seems to be something that's
    Messing with the flucture of the money (what?)
    It's not coming to me
    So now it's time for me to tell my homey jarod d
    So i'm, looking at my wallet and i do not have a buck
    Damn i'm out of luck, damn i'm feeling stuck

  157. If elected President, my first act... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will be to kill the whole lot of ya, and burn yer country to cinders!

  158. The shortest presidential term ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Bring half our troops home from overseas. Win the War on Terrorism from 15000 ft. (isn't the A-10 warthog one of the coolest planes ever?)
    2) Eliminate the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. Implement the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org) to fund the government.
    3) Fortify the United States border against illegal immigration by deploying the national guard that is being pulled out of other countries.
    4) Propose 2 new laws:
          A) every bill proposed by either the house or senate must be accompanied by the constitutional citation for authority. (if commerce clause is cited, I will have a standing policy to veto)
          B) Except for cases of national defense, federal money collected in one state cannot be used in another
    5) Begin the process of deregulating the health care industry, specifically removing mandatory insurance coverages that artificially inflate the price
    6) Legalize ALL controlled substances & defund & decommission the DEA.
    7) Privatize social security so it actually grows with time like a real retirement plan.
    8) Get assassinated!!! (I have other ideas but I think I would be lucky to make it this far)

    I realize that the president, by himself, does not have the power to do all these things, but if I were running this would be my platform.

  159. Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd pay lip service to all the "consensus" goals required to get elected, like universal healthcare and tax cuts. But I would secretly look to instigate a conflict that I know will escalate and engulf the entire world. Maybe over oil, or fresh water, or declining fish stocks. Doesn't matter what. The goal will be to ultimately reduce the human population. I want 7/8 of the human population gone.

    For some this would be the fulfillment of some sort of Biblical prophecy. For me it would be returning humans to nature's control. Making them subject to natural selection once again. They'll have to struggle to survive on what's left of the planet, but in a few generations humans as a whole will be much better off than they are now. It's time to wipe the slate clean and begin again, and only drastic action will make that possible

    And yes, I'm (mostly) serious.

    1. Re:Natural Selection by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether to applaud you or find a way to have you committed...

    2. Re:Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > And yes, I'm (mostly) serious.

      "George, just because the slashdotters only see a post from AC doesn't mean we don't know it's you."
      - Dick.

  160. Ooh! My Platform! by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    I would categorize my platform as ultra-conservative. Please bear with me:

    1) I would decriminalize most victimless crimes.
    2) I would bring back impaling for anything that is still a crime. Worked for Vlad. I'd be Greyfox the Impaler.
    3) Mandatory reversible sterilization at puberty and a license required to breed. Right now you barely have to demonstrate that you're capable of respiration in order to drive a car in this country, and the requirements are LESS to actually have and raise a child?! Not on MY watch!
    4) Mandatory $1000 worth of training prior to getting a Driver's license.
    5) I would ban all organized religion except for the state sponsored one, which would involved Smurfs. Non-smurfy activities would be punishable by impaling (See point 2).
    6) Mandatory Samurai honor code for public officials and corporate upper management. Get caught with your fingers in the piggy bank? Seppuku for you!

    Naturally some of these would require additional modification to the Constitution and would be more long-term goals.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Ooh! My Platform! by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      Don't be surprised if you're watching the news in November when you see that there is a write-in in Ohio for Greyfox. It will account for 0.000000001% of the vote but it's a start for when you make the comeback in 2012.

      --
      The game.
  161. Change the day-to-day of politics. by hoppo · · Score: 1

    First thing I'd do is give the press conference format a bit of a kick in the pants. I'd make sure all my press conferences and addresses were on a seven-second delay, and use the "F" word liberally in them. For example: talk to Congress like they're a bunch of spoiled children and ponder aloud about what the "F" could possibly be wrong with them.

    Next thing I'd do is encourage the legislature to take away the governmental power that political parties have enjoyed. I would threaten to veto every bill that came across my desk until the two-party power cartel was effectively castrated. There's no reason a majority party should mean anything in the House or Senate, except that they are fairly like-minded individuals holding office. You have a much more honest legislature when you're pitting individuals against each other instead of parties.

    I think by doing these things the rest would naturally take care of itself. While it's easy to think I'd do this or that with regards to a specific policy, it's really not that simple. Every day politicians make decisions based on volumes of information and advice from advisers -- data to which none of us is privy. We are quick to criticize every move of the people we don't like with our 20-20 hindsight, but in reality we can't say we wouldn't reach the same conclusions at the time.

  162. Conspiracies by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    All the obvious stuff has been said so far, so I'll add this:

    I would want to know all the hidden secrets and answers to the conspiracies of our nation's history. I'm not sure if the President actually has access to this knowledge but he must have the power to get some answers. Maybe all the conspiracies of the last 100 years have been sensationalized and the public really was given the straight truth, but I'd at least like to know one way or the other.

  163. My List.. by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

    1. Lower Drinking Age
    2. Lower age of consent (not for personal reasons, I swear!)
    3. Legalize marijuana
    4. Revoke Jack Thompson's ability to practice law in any state (not sure if this is a presidential power, but I will still try to get in done.)
    5. Increase funding for public transportation
    6. Increase funding for schools
    7. Decrease funding for stupid wars that create more problems then they solve
    8. Maximum age for maintaining driver's license
    9. Increase economic/environmental regulations on corporations.
    10. Other stuff

    Obviously, the above list is also probably a good list of reasons why I will never, ever become President of the US.

  164. Simple != Correct by why-is-it · · Score: 1

    I'd try to get the first four items done within the first 24 hours. I don't think I could handle being president any longer than that.

    Sure. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

    I do not believe that simplistic libertarian theories work in this day and age. Regardless of what the founding fathers might have intended, they lived in a reality that is worlds away from our own - one they could never imagine in their wildest dreams. Our world is a much bigger and much smaller place that what they were familiar with, and I don't think that their principles scale to our reality.

    It is not possible to live in splendid isolation from the rest of the world. Even if you place self-interest above all else, integration is the way to go. The simplest analogy I can offer is this: if everybody is holding hands, nobody can make a fist and punch you in the nose.

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  165. If i were the big cheese by booleanoperator · · Score: 1
    While i could never be president, as i am a naturalized citizen in the US, i have very strong opinions about what is needed from our government.

    1. Immigration
    *Secure the borders - lets face it, having a country where anyone can get in illegally, is not safe or fun for the masses. We need to build a triple or double fence and arm our border patrol with the tools they need to secure the border, while putting pressure on mexico to take back their citizens and cut off the flow. *Legalize the Worthy - there are by some estimates over 12 million illegals in this country, we cant get them all out, there is no way. It does no one any good, save for a few dirty businessmen, to have a sub-class of people. The mostly law abiding elements of the illegal population must be integrated into American society.

    I propose we allow the heads of households or the single illegals to join the us military and serve a 6 to 8 year hitch to prove their loyalty. 6 to 8 years is a lot more service than some "Americans" will give for their country. Afterwords, the immediate families of those serving should be granted citizenship or at least a greencard with a pathway to citizenship.
    *Deport the Criminals - Step up ICE enforcement to deport the remaining illegal element, and enforce current laws govern illegal aliens.

    2. Economy
    *Jobs - There are huge segments of the population being left behind, mainly the industrial works, the men and women that built this country in the 20th century.

    I propose a wealth of new public works projects to both provide jobs for our skilled workers and to strengthen this country's energy and agricultural independence. The projects should focus on:
    • Improving Refining Capacity
    • Building Nuclear Power Plants
    • Financing Bio-fuel infastructure
    • Rebuilding the nation's Military Machinery
    *taxes - Simplify the tax code, much like Rudy Giuliani has recently stated, a simple teared tax 10% on first 40k, 15% on upto 160k or so, and 30% after that. Science and Advancement - We must continue to be on the forefront of technology, i would invest extra funding in the advancement of Nano Technology, Bio Fuels, Cell research, and Space Exploration. Information and Copyrights - Every few years we must re-examine ourselves to see if we can improve, this is more important as technology changes drastically. I believe we are in this case with the Internet and the wide availability of any information and Must Adapt. While i believe in net neutrality, I would urge congress to form a bi-partisan, independent commission of our greatest minds to figure out what policy would serve our country and our people the best. This is not the place for unilateral judgment, too much is at stake.

    3. Foreign Policy *Strength and Reliability - We must complete what we started and we cannot back down. Its that simple, the rest of the world will take anything else as weakness, courage, or impotence. Though we should also make sure that those ventures are economically viable, we bled for the oil fields of Iraq, and we should not be paying $100 dollars a barrel. The extra troops from the Immigration plan should help bolster our Armed Forces so we don't over-extend our military by doubling our presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Once our mission is complete there, we can talk about a draw down, and a stabalization of relations with Iran and Pakistan, though both of those countries should be on our "watch list".

    4. Healthcare *Protecting The People - I would urge congress to create an independent committee to evaluate current regulations for the insurance companies and to make a recommendation on any legislation that would balance the profitability of these companies with the need of the American people. While i am not in favor of socialist policies, there must be a middle ground that can ensure that all people in this great nation have access to health care.

    Now, if only i can get that constitution slightly altered so i could indeed run for president.
  166. Domestic Initatives by kravlor · · Score: 1

    Assuming that I can magically shove these through Congress, here's what I'd like to see:

    1) Committing the US to solving the world's energy crisis. This means:
    1a) Banning the construction of any and all fossil fuel plants. ("Clean" coal doesn't cut it.)
    1b) Enacting legislation to convert the US fleet of vehicles to purely electric (plug-in) drive by 2025 (with, say, $100B (or other large number) bonus to Detroit if they can pull it off by 2015 and a sliding scale of reward on the way)
    1c) Construct new nuclear plants to supply baseload power.
    1d) Build as many renewable power plants as possible. Geothermal, hydro, wind, solar? We need 'em all!
    1e) Invest heavily in funding for nuclear fusion.

    2) Create a new Cabinet-level Secretary of Science, responsible for managing all Federally-supported research (with budget to match!). Charge the new Secretary to work with the Secretary of Education to ensure America's children become competent in science, math, and technology.

    3) Provide universal health care.

    4) Provide additional support to schools such that the average starting teacher's salary is >= $100,000. Pay them what they're worth.

    5) Eliminate the legality of campaign contributions in an attempt to eliminate their corrupting influences on elected officials. Instead, publicly finance all federal elections, with the maximum amount of support capped at, say, $50M for big races like the presidency and at lesser amounts for Congressional seats, etc.

    There are many more, but these should start a good discussion!

  167. Checklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cut Defense Department budget to a quarter of what it is now
    Shunt the rest of this money into Socialized Medicine (works for the rest of the civilized world)
    Find attractive secretary.

  168. Give the nation a Total Money Makeover by PackMan97 · · Score: 1

    First I would send every single House Rep and Senator to Dave Ramsey's FPU and then I'd give the entire nation a Total Money Makeover.

    We could certainly use some good fiscal discipline.

    That's about it :) I figure that's enough work to last me 8 years...trying to get this nation to control spending and get out of debt.

  169. Listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Id do the right thing in areas i was 100% on but for other stuff id get a team that had
    1) academics
    2) specialists
    3) everyday people (literally picked of the street if possible)
    who were both liberal & conservatives
    then have them advise me, and i mean really advise me theyres no point in getting reports if your just going to ignore them

    stuff id be 100% on,
    evolution=good,
    drugs=peoples own problem (id need advise on hard drugs but if someone wants to pop some pills or smoke some weed their only harming themselves)
    gay union=good but let states call it whatever they want
    thats about all id be 100% on everything else although i have an opinion id need an unbiased team of advisers to pick whats best for the nation

  170. If I were the Decider... by enzo_romeo · · Score: 1
    1. I would first kick Bush in the nuts at my inauguration, right after they swear me in.
    2. Then I would de-classify all documents/notes related to those secret meetings between Cheney and the energy moguls. Might as well de-classify all the info pertaining to the build up to the Iraq war, in other words, I'd have full public disclosure. No more secrets.
    3. Reinstate the estate tax, otherwise mislabeled the "death tax." I think everyone should help pay for this stupid war.
    4. Kick Cheney in the nuts.
    5. Solve the crisis in the middle East with my secret plan.
    6. Yeah, I'd make it illegal to torture people. I know, people love that one now but it just goes against what I think America should stand for.
    7. Bring Formula 1 back to the US.

    For my 2nd day I'd probably try to sart some sort of energy initiative thingy with a catchy slogan.

    1. Re:If I were the Decider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Solve the crisis in the middle East with my secret plan.

      What happened to the "no more secrets" from #2? Or is the answer to that a secret too?

      Let me guess, I just earned myself a kick in the nuts, right?

  171. war by kurtis25 · · Score: 1

    I would end the war in Iraq and then tell the American Automakers that they had to share half the amount we would have spent on the war over the next 4 years to come up with a highly fuel efficient car (150+ mpg). The car would have to be affordable ($15,000) of course they could make luxury models but they would need affordable ones. I would give them a 1 term deadline and tell them any discoveries and inventions they made using the money had to be shared with the other companies. If they only spend part of their money they get to evenly split the rest. The other half of the money would go to solving the infrastructure problem created by the new cars. For example if they come up with electric cars the money would go to apartments, homeowners and electric companies to pay for upgrades so everyone could charge their cars.

  172. libertarian (almost anarchist)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A president can't do what (s)he wants. They have to act within the realm of what congress and the judiciary will allow. That's not very fun, so I'm going to assume I would have the power to do these things.

    • privatize then abolish government education, medicare, social security, etc
    • abolish all government regulation of healthcare, energy, telecommunications, auto, etc
    • cease funding for federal government functions not explicitly defined in the constitution
    • abolish all laws that grant the federal government power not explicitly defined in the constitution
    • veto all bills that grant additional power or money to the federal government
    • sign all bills that remove power or reduce government power
    • repeal the 16th amendment and implement a flat or fair tax (at a very low rate by this point)
  173. The Way Forward by Inventor+Stan · · Score: 1

    Health care costs can reduced by about 50% by:

    First, data mine insurance forms to obtain cost and performance data for health care providers, then make that data available on the Internet so consumers can shop wisely for health care.

    Second, require a high deductible on any insurance that a consumer has.

    Third, if a consumer can't afford health care at the time needed, the government provides a loan.

    With this approach, a consumer has both the incentive to shop wisely for health care and the information needed to do so. Then, competition will drive down costs. This is the heart of the approach. More details would be needed to make it viable.

    Taxes are so high that many mothers work. Many kids come home to an empty house, then find some comfort food to fill their emotional emptiness. Then sometime later, look in the mirror, see that they are gaining weight, and then eat some more comfort food. And that's why a lot of kids are fat. It's a good reason to put the government on a diet.

    Enclaves with their own local government, laws and regulations would provide places where new ideas and approaches could be tried without significant risk to the rest of the nation. And then once shown to work, can be adopted nationwide. This is an end run around decades of liberal expansion of government, including regulations.

    How one feels about the country, the government and one's prospects for the future influences how productive one is. If one feels powerless, trapped in a boring job, a cog in a bureaucratic machine, etc., one is likely to tune out and go thru the motions daily until one retires. On the other hand, if one feels good about things, one is likely to be engaged, productive and perhaps innovative.

    There's more information and more ideas at:

    http://showcase.netins.net/web/stanlass/theway.html

    1. Re:The Way Forward by edwdig · · Score: 1

      Second, require a high deductible on any insurance that a consumer has.

      The problem with high deductibles is it encourages people to wait for treatment until things get really bad. Treatments tend to get more expensive and become less effective the longer your wait to do something.

      You really don't want to encourage people to delay treatment on things that turn out to be cancer.

      For the rest of your health care points, I don't see how that would help much. Sure, on things like joint replacements I could see the benefit of letting people research and compare. But for most things of significance, without a medical degree you're not going to know enough to do much of an evaluation. And in any sort of emergency situation, you're not going to have time to research and compare things.

    2. Re:The Way Forward by Inventor+Stan · · Score: 1

      > The problem with high deductibles is it encourages people to wait for treatment until >things get really bad. Treatments tend to get more expensive and become less effective the >longer your wait to do something. >You really don't want to encourage people to delay treatment on things that turn out to be >cancer. With loans available to the consumer, guaranteed by the government, there is not a reason to delay treatment. The point of the high deductible and loans for basic health care is to induce the consumer to shop wisely. Aside from emergency treatments, the symptoms alone should be enough to guide you to a good health care provider. Also, once one is diagnosed, one could comparision shop.

  174. This is what we need to do by jokr2thief · · Score: 1

    There is only one thing a President needs to do, and not a single candidate will do it. They need to outlaw the sale of consumer vehciles that burn gasoline. It would be a many-birds-with-one-stone proposition.

    1) It will force the automotive industry to research alternate fuel sources. The research will go a lot further when it has the financial backing of Ford and GM.

    2) It will eliminate the US's dependance on foregin oil.

    3) It will give us the excuse we need to pull US troops out of the Middle East, because when you get down to brass tacks, the war is all about oil.

    4) This will reduse the US's greenhouse gas emmissions down to almost nothing, and will prompt other countries to follow suit.

  175. Hm... by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

    Two chicks at once.

  176. At least I'm self aware... by nick_davison · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Get impeached.

  177. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by cmpalmer · · Score: 2, Funny

    To the tune of "If I Only Had A Brain"...

    I could get myself a blowjob
    Deny it with a snowjob
    Or some story I invent
    F*** the interns that they send me
    then have my wife defend me
    If I was the president...

    Oh they cant do nothing to me
    unless she says she blew me
    and knows my cock is bent
    I would orally debrief her
    Sit back and smoke some reefer
    If I was the president...

    --
    -- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
  178. Take over the world! by disckitty · · Score: 1

    There is no reason the USA should be voluntarily giving up its spot as an international power house, but that's precisely what its choosing to do. These are the ways I'd fix it:

    • Adjust foreign military operations: Stop destroying things, start constructing things. Reduce military spending. Become an active and involved participant with the UN - including paying dues. Close illegal prisons (see: Guantanamo - By the way, they'll need a really large cheque to make up for all that's been done to them), and dropping the Patriot Act.
    • Education: Stop failing. Start investing a lot into teachers and systems that work.
    • Reduce the debt: Start balancing budgets, and actively work to pay off the damn debt. Reducing military investment, minimally increase taxes for the high-end income earners, reduce salaries of high-earning government officials who.
    • Legalise drugs: Stop trying to plug the facet, and start controlling the flow. Ensure programs are in place to inform people of the consequences, and spaces for rehabilitation.
    • Stop the Fear: Neighbours really aren't that scary. Through the media and the education system, encourage respect for things that are different: cultures, languages, countries, people, etc. This fear mongering is not helping internally nor externally. With regards to foreign affairs, cease playing the bully, and start acting and performing like an all-wise and respectful older sibling.
    • Improve Immigration: Start making it easier for Mexicans to gain work visas in the country. If they already work here, then it proves there is work to be had. Ease employment-based immigration. Don't ask your Canadian neighbours to be anal proved when visiting the country.
    • Overhaul the Election System: Get an electronic system that WORKS. I can understand the preference to have 300 million people vote electronically. Get it working. Further, smooth out the election process, and allow multiple parties.
    • Stop Living in the 50s: Stop the barriers with Cuba. Stop the death penalty. Ensure equal treatment for all (with the usual alcohol, smoking, voting, driving restrictions on those under 18). Ensure abortions are available and stigma-free. Consider exploring legalizing euthenasia.
    • Tax System and Social Services: Stop taxing the poor. Start making sure that everyone is healthy (A healthy society can contribute better than one that is only semi-functional). Ensure there are institutions available for those who need it.
    • Go Green: Stop funding oil and gas. They can take care of themselves. Start imposing regulations country-wide on vehicles. Start pushing for and using renewable resources. Stop the waste. Cease encouragement of large families.

    And that's just the short list...

  179. So I'm elected Evil Overlord? Sweet. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    My manifesto:
    Domestic:
    1. Rename my title from 'President' to 'Evil Overlord'. Honesty in advertising.
    2. Legalize Guns, drugs, and prostitution.
    3. Regulate & tax guns, drugs, and prostitution.
    3a. The tax would be $1 per barrel, joint, or deposit ;)
    3b. Regulations would be that the guns don't explode, the drugs are cut with safe materials at consistant potency, and the hookers are clean. And partakers must be at least 18.
    3c. Resultant taxes would go to fund gun safety courses, drug treatment centers, and hooker education and medical treatment.
    4. $1B per year goes towards building new nuclear plants, one each of the new types approved.
    4a. Each plant will be dedicated towards eliminating the dirtiest plant currently in operation.
    4b. Some funding will go towards ensuring the necessary fuel is available.
    4c. Once the plants are built, the funding will go towards reprocessing technologies and plants
    4d. Heck with it, $1B to 'renewable electric power', with an additional $1B going towards whoever managed to produce the most kwh the previous year, relative to funding. So if solar/wind wins(probably will the first year), they get $2B the next year. The fourth year nuclear wins when their plants finally come online.
    4e. The first project to be started on the renewable side will be the off-shore windfarm Kennedy killed.
    5. ANWAR and the gulf are getting drilled; however I'll also dedicate $200M or so each towards developing cellulostic ethanol, biodiesel, and plankton fuel production.
    6. $1B towards developing/deploying a functional PRT system in the cities, including cross-links. Gotta have something to put the new power towards.
    7. Draw down corporate and personal welfare. I want results for the citizen's money.
    8. Get rid of income taxes in favor of a sales tax such as fairtax. If people still need welfare to keep from starving, that should be provided directly with an eye towards getting them to be self sufficient.
    9. Lock down the borders to prevent criminals from crossing.
    10. Reform legal immigration to make it much easier.
    11. Add gun safety to school courses along with driver and sex ed.

    Foreign Policy:
    1. I'm afraid that we're stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq for a while. I'd turn up pressure until incidents are low enough that I can start drawing down the troops. I figure we're stuck there for at least the next 2 decades, unless we want them to collapse like Afghanistan did and cause problems a couple decades down the road again.
    2. Point out to foreign leaders that I'm in control of the nation's weapons, and that I LIKE big explosions. By the way, it's not 'President Firethorn', it's 'Evil Overlord Firethorn'. Hint Hint.
    3. On the other hand, follow a strict policy of mutual benefit and keeping of promises/policies.
    4. End world aid in favor of picking a country/area and improving it to at least 2nd world status before moving on to the next one. Pick the worst area we can reasonable help.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  180. In no particular order ... by Culture · · Score: 1

    1) Tell Israel to pull out of the West Bank or lose all US support. If they agreed, I would then sign a NATO-like agreement with them that would assure total war with anyone that bothered them from that point forward. 2) Get serious about our overseas oil dependence. I would introduce an 0.5-1 mpg/year increase in fleet mileage requirements, tax on low mileage vehicles and a phased-in tax on gasoline (say 0.25 gal/year). I would champion Nuclear energy and implement a long-term storage solution for waste (Yucca Mountain or similiar). I would create a Manhattan-project for alternative energy (of course this might not pay off, but I think it is needed). 3) Phase in a total elimination of farm subsidies over the next 5 years. 4) I would quit supporting directorships, whether they be anti- or pro-USA, and support fairly elected governments, whether they be anti- or pro-USA. 5) I would stop illegal immigration if it took building a 100 foot high wall with land mines and automatic machine gun towers. I would then greatly increase visas (perhaps to 200-500k/year), and distribute them so that immigrants were representative of the world. 6) I would stop the war on drug users and war on terror. I would then return anti-terrorism duties to law enforcement. 7) I would ensure a balanced budget with whatever across-the-boards budget cut was required. 8) I would institute a progressive income tax with no deductions of any type. 9) I would eliminate tax abatements for businesses. 10) I would make prisons self supporting, and not allow anyone out who has not demonstrated an ability to support themselves and interact with society. OK, I would have to actually be king to get this stuff done, but it is what I would push.

    --
    ----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
  181. You want my short list ? by ohgood · · Score: 0

    1) Apologize to the American people for putting me in office. 2) Fire 1/2 the federal employees and turn the savings into real free health care, and real social security. 3) Make all the laws of the last 15 years null, and future bills would require a one paragraph summary, need a 2/3 vote from the American public, and need teeth defined before any energy/money exerted. 4) Ask the troops in all other countries if they wanted to come home today, or tomorrow, and do it. 5) Disband the entire silliness of the Dept. of Homeland Security. 6) High speed rail, every freaking where, either side of interstates, one side frieght, other side non. (there oughtta be some money left over from all those fed jobs being void still for this) 7) No more bullshit electronic voting. Ever. Paper ballots, consecutively numbered, and indexed. 8) No more handouts to corporate america, no more billions in aid to other countries. (ours is still pretty fucked up and we could use the cash ourselves) 9) No more 'secured' public speaking events for elected officials. If they want to get up and talk, they better be ready for some heckling, and get it. 10) Bang some hawt interns, look the public right in the eye, and tell them I LIKED IT, AND IT WAS GOOOOOD !

  182. Get Constitutional by iso-cop · · Score: 1

    Print off a copy of the Constitution and the Federal Budget and work with Congress to create a budget the holds taxes as they are, reduces U.S.A. debt, and best conforms to the Constitution.
    Do a similar exercise with the Constitution and current Federal law, asking Congress to repeal laws that weaken or infringe upon Constitutional rights. Work to repeal laws that are antiquated and simplify those that are overly cumbersome.
    Begin to accomplish this by reminding each and every person that the prime directive of every public servant is defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Personal gain beyond the designated salary has no place in public service. If personal gain is desired, go to the private sector. On that note, work to eliminate lobbyists and cap election spending so that representation of the people rather than large corporations can take place.

  183. Easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the previous administration did.

  184. Caliphate of America by peter303 · · Score: 1

    "Those people" wont stop until every continent on Earth has become a Caliphate: Muslim country ruled by Muslim law. Funny, switch a few words (Christian and Democracy) , and sounds like some speeches coming out of Washington.

    1. Re:Caliphate of America by jabster · · Score: 1

      "sounds like some speeches coming out of Washington."

      yeah. sounds like something Obama would say. Him and his building His Kingdom here on earth.

      -john

      --
      Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
  185. single payer universal health care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many things but this would most help us compete with the rest of the world and improve our quality of life.

  186. I could fix the country with only a few changes. by jhcurtis · · Score: 1

    1. Use the military to assist the border patrol. Anyone crossing the border illegally would be given 10 lashes with a cane and deported. Same with people found to be in the country illegally after a 90 grace period.

    2. Prosecute all employers who are hiring illegals. Arizona's law sounds good.

    3. Give all recipients of welfare a physical. If they are physically capable of working, take them out of the welfare system after 6 months and require a 2 year delay before they can be re-enrolled.

    4. Stop all the nanny state financial giveaways that make it more lucrative to be getting a government handout than it is to work.

    5. Use the suddenly available labor pool to take over the jobs vacated by all the illegals self-deporting after #1 goes into effect.

    6. Make all prison sentences "at hard labor". Chain gangs and work parties to do most of the public works jobs.

    7. Cut the number of people on government pay role by at least 50% by using prisoners to do most manual labor jobs currently being done by unionized civil servants.

    8. Revisit all the laws currently on the books and eliminate any that have no basis in common sense and the constitution. Re-write remaining laws in plain language that do not require an education in Latin to understand.

    9. Implement term limits that limit politicians to 6 years max and then forbid that person from receiving a government pay check for at least 6 years before being able to run for office again.

    10. Eliminate the IRS. Institute a 3% sales tax on all sales and services. This should be more than enough income to support the remaining government functions.

    11. Implement a law that requires all bills in Congress and the Senate to be single subject. No more Omnibus bills with thousands of set asides. All amendments must be read and debated on the floor. A filibuster would only last as long as the politician could continue talking ABOUT THAT SUBJECT.

    12. Implement a 5 year limit on appeals for the death penalty. Using hanging or firing squad as the method. Televise on all stations in the region where the person is being executed.

    13. Limit frivolous lawsuits by making the person filing pay the court costs and lawyer fees if they loose.

  187. The real racists and sexists by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    The real racists and sexists in this election are the Clintons. Just sayin'.

    And that's the least of their shortcomings.

  188. A Choice by jjm496 · · Score: 1

    I would:
    a) Use my new-found international connections to get a Canadian Passport.
    or
    b) Spend the next 8 years doing everything possible to drive up the value of my oil investments.

  189. Foreign and domestic platform: by scumdamn · · Score: 1

    Redeploy forces in Iraq, close permanent bases we've built, fire Blackwater and other government contractors. Direct the EPA to begin strictly enforcing air pollution laws, get snowmobiles out of national parks, sign the stem cell bill that Bush vetoed twice. Lobby congress to increase taxes on the rich so that we can get out of debt. Lobby for single-payer health care (much like the French plan), the Equal Rights Amendment, a new FISA bill that requires warrants before eavesdropping, a new energy policy that lessens demand for oil and increases demand for renewable energy, lobby for incentives for pebble bed nuclear reactors as long as companies that accept governemnt money will release their patents and allow for greater competition, lobby for a du jure right for gay people to serve in the military (Don't Ask Don't Tell is not being enforced currently and things aren't falling apart any more than they would be if it were). I'd close Guantanamo and return those prisoners I couldn't legitimately charge to either their home nation or a nation willing to accept them. I'd even likely pay some reparations. I'd pardon the Grenada prisoners, repair our relations with Venezuela, and end the Cuban embargo. And I'd fight fight fight fight fight because the other side would fight me at every turn. I'd talk on TV as long as they'd let me, I'd implore the American people to give this whole experiment a try because we've given right-wing neoconservativism a try for the last 8 years and gotten nowhere. I'd debate just about any wingnuts on TV publically in order to further push and lobby the nation for what we should do. I'd use the bully pulpit every damn day in language average people understand rather than getting all Wonky like many Democrats have.

  190. Vote for Me by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1
    1) Cancel the War On Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Terror, etc.
    2) Eliminate the USPS, the FCC, the DEA, the Departments of Education, Labor, Homeland Security, and probably several others.
    3) Lower personal income taxes across the board.
    4) Increase funding for NASA, NIH, CDC, and the NSF
    5) Double the amount of pre-tax contributions that can be made to private investment accounts.
    6) Fund research into the development of alternative energy resources (FU OPEC!).
    7) Establish a program similar to private investment accounts with tax exempt status for first-time home buyers.
    8) Repeal all 3-strikes legislation and roll back privatization of the federal prison system.

    That's my gameplan.

    --
    If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
    1. Re:Vote for Me by scumdamn · · Score: 1

      We still owe 9 trillion dollars. Would you propose to pay that money back? If so, lowering taxes across the board (including to the rich) isn't the way to go.

    2. Re:Vote for Me by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1
      Rome wasn't built in day. The ordered list should read is no particular order.

      Oh yeah... 9) Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget.

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
  191. What I would do.... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I. Firstly, I promise to fail in some things...but I also promise to honestly do my best. And to endeavor to do my best honestly.

    II. In response to when am I going to bring our troops home from Iraq?

    As soon as I finish bringing our troops home from Germany, Japan, Korea...and Vietnam. Those wars happened last century. Don't you think our soldiers have been there long enough?

    I don't believe in starting or provoking fights. And while I think pacifism is a beautiful concept, the playground in 5th grade taught me - it does not work. Some will tell you fighting never solves anything. But many of us know that the right fight, fought rightly, can solve a great many things. If you have the strength, standing up to a bully...or even standing against the bully to protect others can make the playground a better palce. That said....you better not be the bully.

    III. What am I going to do about social security? retirement? etc?

    Two things:

    1) Not spend our children's future! Balance our budget and work towards a treasury surplus. Right now America has elected itself. We complain that the government is bloated, in debt, uncaring. Meanwhile, the same is said of the average American. We need to change both....we need a healthier government and a healthier us.

    2) Second, protect the savings of citizens. Currently, the government overspends. Then prints more money to compensate. Deflating the value of our currency. What many people do not realize is that the government is stealing their savings and retirements. Perhaps this is why so few Americans save...because they know that even with interest their money is worth less down the road - so they might as well spend it now. Returning to the gold standard will ensure that American's savings are secure.

    IV. What about the issue of marriage?

    Right now, our nation is in contention over the issue of marriage, and the rights associated with marriage. I view this largely as a false issue, one created by the erroneously created by the government. We often talk about the concept of the seperation of church and state, or more accurately the non-establishment and non-interference claus. And I believe this issue is a product of a failing to adhere to that understanding.

    Let me ask you this question....why do I need a license from the government to be married? That's just ridiculous...

    Some argue that the government is preventing people from loving one another. First off, if you need a piece of paper from the government to love someone...you're in a world of hurt. And just cause two people are married, does not mean they are loving each other - though it should. But millions of children of divorced parents will tell you it often doesn't.

    Personally, I believe that marriage is a spiritual sacrament, before me, my wife and our God. Others believe much differently. Our beliefs should neither infringe nor be infringed upon. It is unfair for us to restrict other's in their concept of unions, but it is equally wrong to force others to accept your view of such unions.

    That said, we've tied a lot of civil, economic, and goverment factors to marriage. This should not be the case. I apply the axiom "render unto Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's." As such, I believe the government should allow the incorporation of common households. Just as business' incorporate as a legal entity. An incorporation of common households would allow for the addressing of such legal issues as taxation, insurance, inheritance, etc. Be it a man and woman, two same sex inhabitants, multiple living partners, or even two elderly sisters living out the remainder of their lives together.

    As for marriage, marriage would take place within the understandings of your personal beliefs and would only be recognized by those of like faith and understanding. Marriage would come with no civil benefits, only those spiritual and emotional benefits found within the confines of your spiritual faith or beliefs. If a couple marrie

  192. My platform by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

    1. Repair Democracy - Utilize a better voting system such as range voting or ranked pairs which does not lead to a two-party system. Change voting laws to reduce the influence of corporations and big money.

    2. Return Culture to the People - Reduce copyright terms to short, reasonable time periods, only as necessary to encourage new works. Launch a major federal operation to archive as many movies, songs, books, and other forms of expression as is feasible. Make these freely downloadable once their copyrights expire.

    3. Optimize the Legal System - Make it more difficult to sue, and make those who sue irresponsibly pay for the time they wasted. Get people smarter than me together to figure out how to work more common sense into the legal system. Make it harder to prove malpractice, to help control medical costs. Remove the complex jury selection process, using the simpler, more expedient, and fairer British system.

    4. Use the Internet to Involve People in Government - Try developing a system in which people can make suggestions, discuss current legislation, etc, and have their leaders listening and involved in the discussion.

    5. Protect Basic Rights - Privacy, etc.

    These are what I would bring to the job personally. For the other big issues, I would have to lean on the wisdom of others.

  193. I'd never want to be President - Dictator, maybe by jht · · Score: 1

    None of the things I'd want to do would ever get done as President. Now, on the other hand, if I were Dictator of the US, I'd:

    - Withdraw the vast majority of our troops from Iraq within a few months. Rapid transition to a trained Iraqi army.

    - Send more troops to Afghanistan. We really neglected that one, and the lack of muscle there is one of the reasons that Pakistan is spiraling the drain right now as well.

    - Pull most of our troops back from around the globe. Even Korea.

    - Implement basic health insurance as a universal program, government-run. Allow people to buy supplemental insurance as they like from private carriers.

    - Remove the income caps on Social Security and Medicaid taxes to help pay for it all.

    - Don't let the estate tax go away.

    - Increase the top rate on income over $250k by a couple of percent.

    - Increase the standard deductions, and eliminate most itemized deductions. Simplification is good.

    - Make states unify their sales taxes to both help revenues and simplify collection. Keep the rate low. (a few would go up, some would go down)

    - Increase the gas tax to both pay for infrastructure improvements and to encourage alternative energy source development. Use tax credits to also stimulate alternative energy.

    - Impose term limits on the judiciary. Long terms, but guaranteed turnover (maybe 20 years or so, enough to keep them independent, but also make sure that they aren't standing in the way for many decades to come). Pack as many of my judges as I can into the system to help keep the country from changing things back too fast.

    - Streamline copyright law. Shorten terms, and make copyright clearance easier. Expand the fair use exemptions.

    - Fix the patent system, put more resources into examination, and shorten patent periods in most areas to 5-10 years.

    - Eliminate all farm and product subsidies, but phase them out over a 4-year period. Try and develop free trade with anyone who is willing to do the same and also drop tariffs and implement both copyright regulations and patent laws like the ones I create.

    - Get the government out of bedrooms, science, and doctor-patient decisions. End the drug war by legalizing most of them, regulating them, and taxing the heck out of 'em. Take the money saved and put it into basic policing and treatment.

    Then, after 4-8 years as dictator, get the heck out and let elected officials screw it all up again.

    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
  194. merge the IRS and EPA by pgaffney · · Score: 1

    1) Require all businesses to report chemical composition of all gaseous / liquid / solid waste created in any manufacturing operation, along with similar estimates for wastes created by use of said products (ie carbon in gasoline). Require them to pay cleanup costs for each one (obviously this will increase consumer cost for dirty products). Impose fines for people who underestimate how much they're polluting, put people who evade this tax in jail for income tax fraud.
    2) Ban imports of products not conforming to 1 as verified by an appropriate UN inspections body.
    3) Greatly reduce military expenditures for anything not related to missiles and remote controlled aerial bombardment. There is no need with our level of technology to use our military for anything other than destroying economic and productive infrastructure of expansionary military powers (of which we are currently one).
    4) Prosecute previous administration for war crimes.
    5) Work with less developed economies to help coordinate and fund sanitation and transportation infrastructure, paying particular attention to developing ways to combat goverment and corporate corruption.
    6) Large investments in basic energy, space travel research, asteroid detection / guidance.
    7) Develop controls for biotechnology, keeping all equipment that can be used for creating or engineering viruses firmly under surveillance.
    8) Go investigate about that supervolcano under Yellowstone that buries the northwest section of the country in ash every 600,000 years and last did this about... 600,000 years ago.
    9) Socialized healthcare for everyone under 80, and everyone over 80 up to some reasonable limit. It will eventually be possible to keep people alive indefinitely given sufficient money, and the government has to stop picking up the tab somewhere.

  195. Climate Change, anyone? by Gauchito · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After reading everyone's posts, I'm worried that policies to fight climate change aren't on most (not even many!) of the lists! And this on a site that caters to the theoretically better educated portion of the population.

    I can think of no issue that is larger today than global warming. At least to me, everything else seems petty and moot, especially if climate change is just going to undo in a really big way the strides made in the areas the other posters seem to care about.

    I'm consistently more concerned and depressed by our lemming-like walk to the climate catastrophe cliff, but I had hoped that at least our part of the general population was aware and worried and, given the opportunity, would act in anyway they could to prevent it. If I were president, I would scale down on all the wastes of money this government currently has enacted, devote much of the money currently spent on petty projects into research and infrastructure so we can leave something behind for our kids. I would fight tooth and nail to get the corn and coal lobbies off the government's back so progress can finally be made in constructive action.

    Bush has wasted so much of our time to act, why aren't we feeling the sense of urgency more widely by now?

    1. Re:Climate Change, anyone? by sheph · · Score: 1

      That's because most educated people are capable of using the Internet to look at climate trends over a long period of time. When they do, they discover the same thing that I have. It's cyclical, and all this global warming crap is a ploy to extract money from the public to combat a problem that will eventually go away on it's own. In the 70s it was global cooling. Weather trends have gone warmer and cooler for 100s of years without any help from us. I'm all for a cleaner environment for other reasons (like the toxins aren't good for humans), but let's not give anymore credence to this nonsense called global warming.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    2. Re:Climate Change, anyone? by ghfw · · Score: 1

      climate change is such a nebulous that has no real meaning to most people, besides it is a topic that is pretty damn complex, and who has the time to care about "climate change" when a consumer based society has so many other sexy diversions that offer instant gratification....

      BTW if ya look

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=417574&cid=22046410

      environmental issues are kinda my concern too cause I'm 100% sure that unsustainable conspicuous consumption of natural basic resources (like water and oil) will eventually lead to a proverbial hell on earth for those people who get stuck with the mismanagement mess of mankind not being stewards of the environment.

  196. Eliminate Income Tax for Teachers by ZekeSMZ · · Score: 1

    Given that education is one of the few things we can do to advance our country, and that teachers get paid too little - I would eliminate income tax for all teachers in the public school system.

    Yes, there would be details to sort out (give a full exemption to all? sliding scale based on performance? what about private / charter schools?) - but I'd take this step in order to help those who are in the best position to help the economic future of our country.

  197. I'd quit. Immediately. by rindeee · · Score: 1

    I have neither the slightest desire or any ability to perform the duties required. Not that those who have held the office in the past do either, but I have the integrity to admit it.

  198. Since you asked... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I'd start by abolishing our for-profit health care system and implementing a single-payer system resembling any of the other G8 countries. I've been arguing for this since I was in middle school (the first time I got screwed by an HMO).

    Frankly, I believe that this switch would also have the downstream effect of making our own domestic-made products more competitive against imported goods on a price basis. Before you label me as commie nutjob, take a look at what employers pay per employee for healthcare in this country. Then remove that cost from your (car/boat/television/trinket) that you buy that could be made domestically but isn't always price-competitive. If we could get US-made goods back into a reasonable price point in this country, then people might start to realize again that our factories are indeed turning out high-quality goods.

    Then, I'd get our troops the hell out of the meat-grinder known as Iraq.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  199. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    Seriously, don't agree with all points in the song, but it's got a powerful message.

    Out of curiosity - which points?

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  200. Re: USPS by PackMan97 · · Score: 1

    "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

    Actually, the Post Offices is not one the things that need to go. Regardless, the Post Office has been self supporting since 1971. Not a dime of tax dollars go toward supporting it.

    However, if you wanted to end the statutory monopoly that the USPS currently enjoys, I wouldn't see that as a bad thing as long as you require others that enter the first class postal business to also serve every single resident (as the USPS is required to do).

  201. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

    Also, people usually don't get buried for three days after dying

    You can, if it fits on the rhyme.

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  202. What I would do as President by lordshipmayhem · · Score: 0

    1) Declare the last Friday in January to be National Guacamole Appreciation Day. We all need a winter holiday. 2) To combat concealed weapons in schools, declare all schools nudist. "Where will you hide the shiv NOW, punk?" ^_^ 3) "Lose Weight with the President" virtual reality show. That will help the national obesity epidemic, mostly by people laughing so hard they're burning calories at a prodigious rate. 4) Declare Professor Pat Paulson as Vice-President. OK, he's been dead for a few years, but the Vice President isn't expected to do much anyway.

  203. GO TO HELL PAULTARD!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can't spam the Internet forever without somebody catching your shitty bastard ass in person eventually. When we do catch you in person, we'll make the Nuremberg trials look like traffic court!

  204. A more important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would Jesus do?

    BTW, doesn't the answer to that question qualify as fan fiction?

  205. My presidency by alterego1935 · · Score: 1

    My first actions as president would be (In no particular order): 1. Reestablish the office of science and technology that Newt Gingrich threw out. Staff it with respected professors serving for a term of one year. Ask them to produce a yearly report on all things related to science and technology. 2. Establish a universal health care option for everyone under the age of 16. 3. Do a Kennedy-style throwing down of the gauntlet regarding alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles. This is it. No more screwing around. Let's get serious about getting off of oil. 4. Sign Kyoto. Let's get serious about the environment while we're at it. 5. Disband fox news. Let's restore some semblance of journalistic integrity to this country. 6. Ban all mention of God in the public arena. No exceptions. Religion has no place in government. 7. Convene a congressional study for the immigration problem. 8. Permanently pass the assault weapons ban that Bill Clinton pushed through congress (and W allowed to expire). We do not need teens with Kalashnikov's running around our malls any more. 9. Bar anyone associated with K-street from approaching the White House grounds. Marine guards ordered to shoot on sight. 10. Ask the UN to invade and occupy the "holy land". Throw everyone out, disband the state of Israel and make religious "amusement parks" and historical markers that the faithful may visit.. but no one settles there. 11. Begin a phased withdrawal of all American Military forces from Iraq to bases in Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Let the chips fall where they may. Maintain a strong force in the area and strike at any targets deemed a threat to national security.

  206. Aera 51 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about letting the network TV people do a live broadcast tour of Area 51.

  207. What to do by Animats · · Score: 1
    First, the cleanup phase.
    • Quickly, and without making a big deal of it, fire Federal employees known to have participated in any type of coverup. In particular, anybody implicated in harassing a whistleblower is out. Word will get around. After that, information flow about problems will start to work again.
    • Put OMB on a one month cycle. Every month, each agency is evaluated for progress against its milestones. The information cycle can't be slower than a month if anything is to work. Also, get some competent people in the various Inspector General offices. Get people with forensic audit and investigative reporting experience. And make it clear that IGs have authority to look at anything; anybody who refuses to turn over records gets suspended or fired.
    • Bring in some top people to turn around key agencies. Maybe Guilani for Justice, Brandon for FBI. Gus Pagonis would be great for FEMA, but he's too old; get him to find someone.

    Domestic policy.

    • Push for tax rates about where they were at the end of the Reagan administration. Those rates worked for the 1990s, so it's hard to complain they're bad for business.
    • Beef up IRS enforcement against non-filers, and against high-income people paying unusually low taxes.
    • Emphasize median per-capita income for wage earners as the primary policy number. That's the number that needs to increase. Worry less about the DJIA.
    • Accept that there's been a housing bubble, and now the air has to come out.
    • Push on medical cures for addiction. Don't expect near-term results.
    • Raise the minimum wage for undocumented workers a few dollars above the normal minimum wage. Only workers who can legally work in the US can be paid minimum wage. Enforcement in small claims courts, with triple damages. Under the table employment creates a presumption in favor of the employee. This discourages employers from hiring undocumented workers to save on wages. Get a national system for easily verifying identity during hiring up and running.

    Energy.

    • Keep the ethanol subsidy, but deduct all fuel inputs. The full subsidy only applies if the extraction plants and the tractors are ethanol-powered, and the ethanol consumed in producing ethanol isn't subsidized.
    • Solar power goal: air-conditioning in the Sunbelt must be solar powered within ten years. New construction within three years, then large commercial properties, then residences.

    Foreign policy.

    • Worry more about the new nuclear powers: N. Korea, Pakistan, and Iran. Worry less about terrorism.
    • Go to Fort Leavenworth. Get together the five or ten best field grade officers from the School of Advanced Military Studies. (That's where the top Army officers study strategy, after they've already been out at the killing end.) Have them come up with a plan for Iraq and Afghanistan. Implement it. It may or may not work, but you can't do better than that.
    • Get along better with Europe and Japan. Keep pushing on China to lighten up, but don't expect much. Work towards some vague understanding that when China catches up with Taiwan economically, they might want to merge. Encourage EU diplomats to push in that direction; they're used to running a multinational area that countries want to join. Meet with Russian leaders, but don't expect much more than detente. Bear in mind that when per capita income passes around $4K/$7K (2000) per year, democracy tends to kick in whether the leadership wants it or not. (This doesn't work for oil states, because the money flows down, not up.)
  208. If elected president... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd make it a priority to develop nanobots, which once made, would free every person on the planet from working or getting sick or aging. I know I left out a lot of details (like how nanobots what I said I wanted), but this stuff is commonly found around the net and in books such as "the singularity is near" and "age of spiritual machines". It's really just a computational problem, we don't have the computational power to simulate and design a robot with a billion parts, but it shouldn't require much more power than what's in the human brain, since a human could in principal work all this out the long way, a computer with the power of a human brain should be able to do it in timescales that are acceptable. The first such computer is scheduled to go on-line in spring 2009, though I doubt it will be immediately put on this most vital task, each year as computers double in power (due to Moore's law), it will be easier and more likely that nanobots will be developed. My guess is 2012/2013, but I'm sure it could be accerelated. There are many sick and dying people that need this technology now.

  209. Nothing new under the sun by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

    I'd rule with an iron fist from my throne of skulls, and ensure that the streets ran red with the blood of my enemies.

    Same platform I ran on for student body president in high school.

    --
    The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
  210. I'd make government useless. by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Government should be completely useless. It should do -nothing- on its own. It must provide an environment in which things can be done efficiently, but it should not do anything for its own sake.

    Part of that environment would be: free public transportation, free medical care, etc. No more laws for the sake of laws (such as war on drugs). Make it very easy to cancel laws and very difficult to pass new ones (ie: 3/4th of house to pass a law, but 1/4th to repel it).

    --

    "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  211. If I were president by virtualthinker · · Score: 1

    First i would appoint all the left leaning policy wonks to a commission looking into Right things. Then i would appoint all the right leaning policy wonks to a commission looking into Left things. I would then set the commissions to meet and report at a mud wrestling competition on a sinking ship. Their bi-partisan report would be due the day before the next inauguration. I would refer all political questions to this commission. Meanwhile I would assemble a top of the line administrative team to run the government. That might be a bit easer now that all the knuckleheads are off wrestling in the mud on a sinking ship over their latest and greatest far idea.

  212. National service by magical_mystery_meat · · Score: 1

    I would have a mandatory national service policy. Every able-bodied young person upon graduating high school would either have to do a one year hitch in a branch of the military and two in the reserves, or two years of civilian service. Your choice. It's paid employment with free room and board.

    Many of America's current cultural problems are, in my opinion, due to a lack of national identity. There are very few unifying experiences anymore and the USA has become very fragmented and provincial as a result.

    We used to have a military service obligation and a peacetime draft and from what I can gather from talking to people of those generations, it helped all Americans feel connected, and gave those who served something to be proud of.

    Elvis Presley got drafted, at the height of his popularity. It gave the impression that our country is so fair that even Elvis had to serve his time in the military.

    This of course presupposes sane leadership w/r/t going to war. It wasn't the draft that made Vietnam such a tragedy, it was being there in the first place.

  213. Limits on corps, unlimits on citizens by Tony · · Score: 1

    First, I'd institute a legislative review process. Each new piece of legislation that is created has an automatic sunset of 2 years. It *must* be reviewed, and re-voted upon, after two years. After its second pass, it must be reviewed after four years. After the third pass, it must be voted upon after eight years. And so on.

    Also, the government will institute a website on which all legislation is published as it passes through the house, senate, and executive branches. Attached to the legislation will be all records (including video and audio of the debates concerning the legislation, and records of modifications and who proposed and executed them, and how each member voted).

    This website will also contain discussion areas, where non-anonymous comments may be posted by citizens of the United States. Registration would occur automatically with your voter registration card. This is to (hopefully!) keep the level of discussion slightly above Digg. Also, this would allow petitions, so citizens could force a review of unpopular legislation. (Any good ideas on anonymizing this while keeping individual responsibility is welcome.)

    This does three things: first, it makes sure we *want* the legislation, and that it works as intended. Secondly, it slows down the amount of legislation that can happen, which is *good*. Thirdly, it'll increase transparency of the legislative process, and provide direct feedback from citizens.

    --

    Next, I'd repeal the concept of corporate personhood. Corporations would have charters under which they operate. Their charter could be city, county, state, national, or international in scope. They would no longer be allowed to hold patents or copyrights. Only the individuals responsible for the patent or copyright may hold them. Citizens could not, however, hold trademarks. That right would be reserved for corporations.

    If the executive body of the corporation is found in any way to operate against the public good, a review process similar to a criminal trial will decide if the corporation may continue, or if the charter will be revoked. If the charter is revoked, the shareholders may re-apply for a new charter. However, any executive personally found guilty of criminal activity will forfeit their shares, which will be liquidated.

    The corporate laws that determine whether a company operates against the public good will be similar to criminal laws. Certain kinds of contracts will be prohibited, including exclusive contracts and variants thereof (the "per-processor" fee for MS-DOS, for instance), intentional interference of competition, and whatnot.

    Of course, should this legislation pass, it would be up for review in two years.

    --

    I will reform the education system, such that all schools are funded equally, with respect to student count. This will end one of the barriers to upward mobility for poor citizens. This will not preclude private schools, which may operate as they do currently, but no federal funding will be applied to private schools. That's why they're called "private."

    "No Child Left Behind" will be left behind, or reformed and funded properly. (The concept isn't necessarily bad, but the execution was horrible.)

    --

    I'll steal a lot of the ideas already mentioned here: election reform to make the two-party system obsolete, begin an infrastructure-reconstruction plan in Iraq ("You broke it, you bought it"), legalize pot, reform tax laws along a progressive scale, phase out DHS, reverse the trend of privatizing government, etc.

    --

    I will strengthen the Monroe doctrine, which originally applied to European conflicts in the Americas, but is now used as an excuse to meddle in the affairs of many countries to the south. I would preclude US military action (including the funding of militant parties) in foreign countries with which we are not at war.

    I wouldn't dissolve our overseas bases. In fact, I believe I'd try to make many more, smaller bases in countries that will have us, and work to inc

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Limits on corps, unlimits on citizens by i_b_don · · Score: 1

      Damn man, you've got my vote.

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
  214. Denmark by batje · · Score: 1

    I would turn the US into Denmark with even more money:

    - No guns. They kill people, mostly by accident.
    - Raise taxes and pay:
        - Free healthcare for your fellow americans who are a bit unlucky to get an illness or accident
        - Free Education for your fellow americans who are born in a family with somewhat less money than you
        - Free Pension schemes for your fellow americans for people who did find that superpaying palo alto job, but worked just as hard collecting your garbage
        - Free social security for your fellow americans who got fired because their kid was born with a disability and they have to stay up all night to take care of it, leaving them too tired to work 100%. (or gotten hit by a train and survived in a wheelchair)

    It works. Danes are more happy than you are.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5224306.stm

    1. Re:Denmark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roovskaeg.....My friend live their any it sucks. NOTHING IS FREE!!!!
      Up to 63% tax - if you earn 100k you would pay 63,000 in taxes!!!!!
      180% tax on new car
      25% VAT tax

      Article about labor shortage because of income tax:
      http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/05/business/labor.php

      In WWII the Danes got over run in a day by the Germans because they had no guns!!! The Japanese didn't attack the American man land because we were armored....Guns are the teeth of liberty!

    2. Re:Denmark by batje · · Score: 1

      Of course taxes are not free. But they spread the risk of being born stupid, or ending up in a wheelchair equally across the population. That is a good thing (if you are stupid, or in a wheelchair, which can happen to you too.)

      And I bet that the Kopenhagen University is a lot cheaper than going to Harvard as well. In the US you also pay for premium service. Difference: only the rich can afford it, so you have a very high illiteracy rate and a lot of uninsured people around. You dont care, but in other countries, people do.

      Just watch Sicko from Michael Moore. Yes, its biased, its not a documentary, but more a pamflet, but it does show the differences in the approach that the US and Europe take.

      And what the US can do with weapons, we can clearly see in the news every day. Jolly good job.

  215. Easy by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    1. Start war to get oil and please friends
    2. Hire attractive female interns
    3. Shag beforementioned interns
    4. Enrich myself to the fullest
    5. Ensure good paying job at the iron triangle afterwards
    6. ?????
    7. Profit

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  216. My list of three, plus a request for #4 by CodeShark · · Score: 1
    1. Revoke special corporate rights, i.e. those that give corporations essentially more rights than individuals. This includes large parts of the Copyright Extension act and chunks of the DMCA
    2. Veto every damn special interest and earmarked bill out of Congress until the damn Senators and House of Reps get it right.
    3. Define contributions to political campaigns from corporate, and governmental / quasi-governmental unions from as being a conflict of interest and therefore illegal for any legislator receiving that kind of campaign funds. It's illegal for judges, why not for the representative branch of government?
    Finally, if I'm allowed one more, it would be to do a combined health care/social security fix that also incorporates an effective way of allowing more workers, not less, into the American economy as tax payers, not tax consumers and therefore at some point puts many more people on the path to become US Citizens. It worked for our forefathers in making America stronger, why wouldn't it work for us now?
    --
    ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
  217. Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You have my vote. I trust that we will see Natalie Portman's wetlands opened for public drilling.

  218. Maybe respect the constitution first of all? by Fat+Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ironically, there are 2 themes co-existing in comments in this thread...

    1) Support for Ron Paul
    2) Proposing that the president do a bunch of stuff that he has no power to do (stepping on Congress' toes)

    --
    stay frosty and alert
    1. Re:Maybe respect the constitution first of all? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Proposing that the president do a bunch of stuff that he has no power to do (stepping on Congress' toes)
      The current administration sets good precedent for being able to do exactly this. Take a look at some of the signing statements and executive orders of the past 2-3 years if you need any proof.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  219. A few... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

    Most of the responses are well beyond the actual abilities of just the president, but what the hell, that's more fun.

    1. Make judicial review explicit in the constitution, and give the judicial branch the right to strike down laws simply for being stupid.
    2. Single tax filing: States and cities just tell the feds their rates for a small selection of tax types.
    3. Single-payer health care: Businesses should not have to worry about health care for their employees; it's the government's responsibility. I'm still not sure if this is a right or left-wing position.
    4. Eliminate seniority pay for teachers, at least secondary. After the first year, young teachers are usually better than older ones.
    5. Government should pay student loans for teachers for the standard ten year period (yes, this means teachers are paid less after that time).
    6. Retroactive consent for statutory rape. Once the victim reaches the age of consent, he or she has the option to pardon the offender.
    7. No one may be convicted of a crime they could not reasonably have been expected to know was illegal.
    8. Instant runoff voting.

  220. My top 5 by thorkyl · · Score: 1

    1 - Provide for and support Vet's when they come home.
            No more homeless Vetrans.
    2 - Terminate all politicians that have been in office for more that 2 terms
            ** firing squad comes to mind
    3 - Replace the IRS with something less confusing
            I like the idea of flat tax on all companies and persons 11.25% works
    4 - Force auto makers and big oil to come up with a plan to see 40 MPG in
            in 5 years on auto's with a GVWR less 10k and 30 on light trucks and SUV's
    5 - Create a federal welfare program and outlaw state welfare. Max time
            anybody can collect is 18 months per 5 years. (this does not replace disability)

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  221. What i want for Christmas by suitti · · Score: 1

    Repeal the DMCA

    Reform Patent law

    Institute National Health care, no citizen left behind

    Reform teaching to use modern techniques, known superior to that currently used

    Fund science: alternative energy, medicine, etc.

    Apply some military funding to defend against asteroids and comets, including demonstrator

    Push to adopt Kyoto, fund alternative energy

    Fix the Farm bill to encourage health

    Probably more. There's plenty to do.

    --
    -- Stephen.
  222. Use unlimited constitutional power to pardon by EMB+Numbers · · Score: 1

    The President has the unlimited constitutional power to pardon and commute sentences. It is underused in my opinion.

    I would commute the sentences of all non-violent drug offenders to time served. Actually, I would give the states and federal persecutors 10 days identify any non-violent drug offenders who's sentences should _not_ be commuted and commute the sentences of the rest. To convince me the sentences should not be commuted, I will require a ten page hand written essay explaining why in each case. That will limit the exceptions to the ones persecutors really care about.

    I would publicly pledge amnesty to all individuals who decline to pay federal income tax while I am president. I expect total federal revenue to drop by 1/3 to 1/2.

    I would submit a budget to congress that only spends 1/3 to 1/2 of the 2007 budget.

    I would declare blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens who have not committed any crime other than being illegal aliens. I would promise similar amnesty to all immigrants who enter the country while I am president. I would direct boarder guards to allow such immigrants to enter unimpeded.

    Labor obeys the laws of supply and demand just like every other economic transaction. When there are no more jobs for immigrants, they will stop coming on their own. Attempts to limit the work force are like any other supply or price controls. They distort the system and are inefficient by definition. I would declare amnesty for any employer who pays less than minimum wage. The minimum wage is a price control and therefore bad by definition. The financial agreement between an employer and an employee is private: the government has no role in the transaction.

    However, I would encourage labor unions and collective barganing. Labor needs the power to oppose heavy handed management. I think unions can do a better job of protecting member interests than the government can.

    1. Re:Use unlimited constitutional power to pardon by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I would commute the sentences of all non-violent drug offenders to time served. Actually, I would give the states and federal persecutors 10 days identify any non-violent drug offenders who's sentences should _not_ be commuted and commute the sentences of the rest. To convince me the sentences should not be commuted, I will require a ten page hand written essay explaining why in each case. That will limit the exceptions to the ones persecutors really care about.

      Can the president grant a pardon for a state crime?

      I would publicly pledge amnesty to all individuals who decline to pay federal income tax while I am president. I expect total federal revenue to drop by 1/3 to 1/2.

      The president doesn't have this power. While you could pardon them so that their jailtime was waived, and penalities, the president cannot forgive their debt or interest on their debt. You could not collect it for your term, but once that ended...

      I would submit a budget to congress that only spends 1/3 to 1/2 of the 2007 budget.

      What would you cut?

      Labor obeys the laws of supply and demand just like every other economic transaction. When there are no more jobs for immigrants, they will stop coming on their own.

      Because most immigrents have access to American unemployment stats? Or are you merely in favor of this country losing all allure to the rest of the world? Because ceasing to be (assuming we still are) the world economic powerhouse seems like a big price to pay to keep foreigners out.

      Attempts to limit the work force are like any other supply or price controls. They distort the system and are inefficient by definition. I would declare amnesty for any employer who pays less than minimum wage. The minimum wage is a price control and therefore bad by definition.

      This is just false. Price controls are not inefficent by definition. Numerous market failures require price controls. The law of supply and demand does not automatically lead to efficency except for in idealized Econ 101 experiments refuted in Econ 102.

      Secondly, you assume that paying people very little, and then forcing other people to take care of them (churches, etc.) is somehow more efficent, merely because the company hiring them doesn't pay. Someone has to giv ethem the money so they can eat, etc.?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Use unlimited constitutional power to pardon by EMB+Numbers · · Score: 1

      U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2

      From: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

      The pardons of President William Clinton can illustrate some of the various reasons. Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, for obvious familial reasons. He pardoned a pair of Hasidic Jews convicted of defrauding the government, restoring their civil rights but leaving monetary penalties intact. In a controversial move, he pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, after application for clemency, in part, from the state of Israel, which had benefited from Rich's philanthropic gestures. President Ford pardoned President Nixon of any wrong-doing in order to put a close to the Nixon era for good. President James Madison pardoned army deserters in an attempt to refill the military's ranks for the War of 1812. President Abraham Lincoln pardoned all Civil War deserters on the condition that they return to their units to fight. Carter pardoned the Vietnam War draft dodgers to help in the long healing process the nation endured after that war.

      Finally, there is no review of pardons. This issue, too, was brought up in the Constitutional Convention, that pardons be granted with the consent of the Senate, but the measure was defeated 8-1. In modern days, there is an office in the Justice Department where pardons are sent, and a Pardons Attorney who reviews and recommends applications. The President may still receive pardons personally, and may grant them at any time. The President need not provide a reason for a pardon, and the courts and the Congress have no legal authority to approve, disapprove, reject, or accept a pardon. Currently, the only way to change the pardon power is by constitutional amendment, though history has shown that the scope of the power can be modified by the courts (as in the acceptance doctrine).

      The President has the power to completely overturn a criminal conviction. This is a full pardon. The conviction is wiped away as if it never happened. The President can commute a criminal sentence. The President can make a pardon conditional, vacating a conviction but leaving paid fines in place, or even making the payment of a fine a prerequisite before a pardon takes effect.

    3. Re:Use unlimited constitutional power to pardon by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I understand the concept of a presidental pardon. However, you failed to address my two objections to your plan. First and foremost, I do not know whether a president can issue a pardon for a crime against a state. 2.2 says a crime against the United States. Since many drug laws are state laws, it seems a valid question. The second point is the concept that you would pardon anyone not paying taxes. While that would make what they did not a crime, and you could forgive their fines, that does not translate to forgiving their debt (and interest upon it.) In fact, since the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt, this would prevent those people from later challenging the IRS's claims of what they owe. A lot of people would get screwed over.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  223. Start throwing out bad legislation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I would do all I could to repeal as much bad law as I could, starting with the U SAP AT RIOT act. There's any number of worthy chunks of crap encoded as law; DMCA, for example; every act extending Copyright...

    Next I would go back and clean up messes left by crap like Powell running the FCC. That means I'd work to force media conglomerates to divest themselves of holdings which are illegal under current law.

    Finally, I would campaign against the electoral college, an institution which should never have existed in the first place, and which is the enemy of democracy. I would also seek to end the disenfranchisement of felons; taking the vote away from criminals only means that we can create a larger and larger criminal class which will have no nonviolent means of redress.

    Lots of people want to do things as president. Not me. I want to un-do things.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  224. Zeitgeist by mutube · · Score: 1

    Probably got something to do with Zeitgeist: The Movie.

    But Wikipedia agrees it is "quasi-public (part private, part government)". The detail about it's relationship to the government describes it in more detail, including a quote from an 9th circuit appeals court that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations". It ends with "The member banks are privately owned corporations."

    As I understand it the Federal Reserve is not a body it's a system. The Board of Directors is a government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are not.

    As to where the power lies? Who knows.

    P.S. I'm not even from the USA, feel free to ignore if it's balls.

  225. FairTax at the top of my list by noc007 · · Score: 1

    I can't say that I'd make a good president, I hope I would though. Here's my list:
    1. FairTax and repeal the 16th Amendment

    In no particular order:
    2. Get rid of the Patriot Act and the DMCA
    3. Either get rid of or heavily reform the No Child Left Behind
    4. Gold Standard
    5. Find out WTF all the damn tax money is going, especially finding out where goods and services are being overcharged.
    6. Work on appropriately getting out of this damn war
    7. Get Congress to follow the wills of the people than the lobbyists, companies, or anyone else with a fat bank account
    8. Reduce this police state nonsense
    9. Get back on better terms with foreign policy
    10. Reduce our reliance on imports and be able to be more self sufficient
    11. Reduce
    12. Push for alternative forms power like solar, but not encourage ethanol production to the point that food production makes a negative impact.
    13. Make English the official language. Anyone that can't speak it needs to STUF and GTFO. :p (I probably wouldn't be that harsh, but we do need a damn official language)
    14. Take a tour of Area 51, then take a tour of where they moved all of Area 51's secret operations too.

  226. God Bless America by DirkBalognapantz · · Score: 1

    I would put a ban on the use of the phrase "God bless America" at the end of any speech I give. In my opinion, it's just a bunch of hypocritical pandering to a superstitious nation. Believe whatever the hell you want. I'll defend that. I just wouldn't pretend that I do.

  227. of the people, by the people, for the people by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    Presidential wish list (not in order of importance):

    1. Flat Tax - Individual - everyone pays 15% of their income in tax - no exemptions, no deductions.

    2. Flat Tax - Corporate - for profit companies pay 20% of their profits in tax - no exemptions, no deductions.

    (If we can't run the Federal Government on that amount of money, then Government spending needs to shrink.)

    3. Re-architect our military to DEFEND our homeland - not to fix/police the world. Take significant savings to fund the next item:

    4. Universal Health Care for all - doctors dictate treatment - no one is denied treatment or coverage.

    5. Universal Higher Education - all that want to attend college may - at no cost.

    6. National Energy Policy - develop all reasonable options for meeting our countries energy needs (nuclear, solar, wind, nat gas, oil and coal) via RFPs filled by private industry. Create National Energy Policy commission (comprised of independent scientists) to evaluate options based on cost/benefit/need.

    7. Abolish FCC, or re-architect FCC to provide for open access to public owned resources. The FCC would "grant for a limited time" the ability of companies to operate public resources like radio/TV/fiber optic lines laid on public ground. Periodically, companies would need to compete to "renew" their operational agreements of these resources. The FCC would have the authority and budget to roll out telecom infrastructure nationwide (or hire a company to do that).

    8. Create REAL barriers between Church and State. Prevent public funding of religious activities or groups. Remove government from the "marriage business". No restrictions on who can marry or why - that is a religious decision. Everyone is paying 15% taxes anyway so Marriage/Family deductions are irrelevant. Abortion would remain legal.

    9. End farm subsidies.

    That's my wish list - I can dream right?

    -ted

  228. king, or president? by shummer_mc · · Score: 1

    If I were president, I'd accomplish what they all accomplish... very little. Presidents don't make laws, they are supposed to administer the enforcement of them... Of course, all of my ideas could be implemented with the right blend of congress-critters, too.

    If I were KING, well, I'd make a few adjustments (in no particular order)...

    1. Disrupt the power-base. I'd get rid of the inherent advantages that D's and R's have in elections.
    2. Reform campaigning. All campaign funding needs to be equalized-- all campaign donations should be made to the US gov and doled out to the top 5 candidates in equal portions. All travel for campaigning will be handled by the National Guard. Each candidate will spend one day in each venue (at least 1 per state) and will host a 'town hall meeting.' After the candidates have had a chance to visit, then the elections would be held in each state-- all voting confidential until all 50 states have results.
    3. Make life fair to *people.* I'd Remove many of the rights/protections of US corporations
    4. Reduce the costs of health care. I'd fund infrastructure for health care-- make more medical schools and create publicly funded hospitals (equipment only) as infrastructure and rent space to Dr's
    5. Stimulate the economy. I'd pump a ton of money into the middle class (quite a bit into law enforcement-- I'm sick of corruption)
    6. Clean the environment and re-vitalize our engineering sector. I'd jack emissions standards to near unbearable levels and FORCE the adoption of cleaner technologies.
    7. I'd repeal veto power (it violates separation of powers, IMO)
    8. I'd prosecute the entire lot of current *and recent* senators and representatives for failing to uphold their oaths (same for the current crop of executive branch idiots).
    9. I'd create trade barriers to keep money in the country and reduce trade deficits.
    10. I'd change the way that laws are drafted-- one law per bill AND IT CAN'T BE RESUBMITTED FOR 3 YEARS, IF IT DOESN'T PASS!
    11. Figure out a way to fix the credit-crazed economy of the past 16 years. I don't really know how, but it'd be a priority. We are selling ourselves into slavery.
    12. I'd re-write IP/copyright laws. Enough said. ... man, I could go on all day.

  229. MIchael Dell's response (tongue in cheek) by Trillan · · Score: 1

    "What would I do? I'd shut down the country and give the money back to the taxpayers," Michael Dell said before a crowd of several thousand voters.

  230. Progressive tuition reimbursement by plehmuffin · · Score: 1
    reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher

    I Would suggest instead to reimburse tuition (for anybody) progressively, such that the better grade-point average you get, the more tuition you get back. That way students have incentive to do better no matter where they are at grade-wise. With a hard 3.2 limit, students with 3.2+ have no incentive to do better, and students so far below 3.2 that they have no chance of reaching that goal won't bother neither.

    1. Re:Progressive tuition reimbursement by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      good idea, you can have a spot in my cabinet.

  231. Transfer control of the gov't to The People by Gord.ca · · Score: 1

    Note: I'm a happy Canuck, so s/President/Prime Minister/ ...

    Due to technical limitations, in the 18th and 19th centuries Representative Democracies were the closest we could come to having the will of the people expressed by government. In the 21st century, even as more democratic structures become possible, we see governments moving away from true representation to selling a product: Coke vs Pepsi, Republican/Conservative kings vs Democrat/Liberal kings. It's been totally forgotten that we aren't crowning kings, we're choosing representatives, and we collectively have the power to decide what they do.

    Collecting the opinions, desires, and most importantly, expertise of millions of people is difficult. No one knows how to do it just yet, mostly because not enough people are really trying. Transferring control from a "representative" elite to The People will take decades, centuries - but the process must begin. Now.

    Sadly, I haven't seen any politicians who truly grok this. Up in Canada, former Prime Minister Paul Martin made great noises about renewing democracy, then did little to actually effect meaningful change. Obama has spoken about the power of the people in similar terms; I expect a similar result.

    --
    The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
  232. If I was elected President: by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

    01: I would sign law to force big oil to stop hiding the h20 car
    02: I would sign law to force Area 51 to show off their alien collection
    03: I would sign law to force the RIAA and MPAA to stop acting like retards
    04: I would sign law to tax the rich on scaling percentages (bigger money, bigger percent)
    05: I would sign law to keep credit card companies from forcing cards on stupid people
    06: I would sign law to keep us from borrowing over and over
    07: I would sign the lawsuit against my employer for carpal tunnel from signing so much law
    08: ???
    09: Profit!!

  233. Get people out of prison by CuteAlien · · Score: 1

    The USA have currently more than 2 million people in prison and also by far the highest count of prisoners per capita in the world. I know the argument is that it reduces crime and works and so even more people should be put in prison, but as the numbers are still increasing every year, this is probably just another debt on the future.

    There are other things I'd like to change, but that would be the most important for me. But as non-american I am not eligible anyway.

    1. Re:Get people out of prison by josepha48 · · Score: 1
      Other countries don't put people in prison because they cut off your hand for stealing or kill you for adultery ( yes in some countries that is legal ). For pedophiles, guess what they do!

      I agree the problem of prison needs reform, but maybe we should not let prisons to be traded on the stock market, like they are in a few states. Also they should not be allowed to profit from prison work.

      The real problem is that prison is not a reform place, it is a place where people can hone their skills as murders, rapists, and thief's.

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!
      Does slashdot hate my posts?

    2. Re:Get people out of prison by CuteAlien · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that you'll find some countries with a worse legal system than that in the USA. But do you really want to search the worst legal systems in the world to find some explanation why the USA leads the prisoners-per-capita statistics by such a large margin (more than 700 prisoners per 100.000 in the US, second place is Russia with already less than 600)?

      It's always difficult or even impossible to compare different countries, but the current state of affairs is so bad, that I'm sure that any president who really cares about this will be able to improve the situation. I know other people think there are worse problems for the country, but for me it would be the number 1 thing that currently needs to be fixed.

  234. Power by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

    I'm amused that virtually everyone who is answering this question is putting together a laundry list of things that aren't actually in the power of someone holding the office of president.

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:Power by Tony · · Score: 1

      It might not've been in the power of the executive branch *before* this President, it's well within the power now. The President can do pretty much *everything!*

      So I reckon that'd be the last thing I'd change, after I change everything else.

      Seriously, though, the President can set an agenda, and influence congress to work on certain legislation. It doesn't always work, but it works *sometimes*.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  235. I would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would immediately ban torture and everything that seems like it, I'd rather not have the valuable information.

    and

    I would trash the miserable education system and start anew.

  236. Bomb England by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    1) Every president needs a unique, historic program.

    2) It lays down the marker that nothing is out-of-bounds. If we can bomb England, we bomb any fucking body on the planet. Seems fair.

    3) Brown people could quit complaining that we pick on them. No longer true.

    4) All films have taught us the real villains have British accents. It is reasonable assume they're the real threat.

    5) Liberation of Scotland can only lead to hilarious results.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  237. if I were President... by jockeys · · Score: 1

    1) end the nanny state. no welfare, no social security, no mecidare/caid, no federal health insurance, etc. if people can't take care of themselves, so be it.
    2) the current war is completely unprofitable. the juice just ain't worth the squeeze. we've better things to spend our money on.
    3) the DHS is the worst thing to happen to personal liberty in a while. they're out.
    4) get out of the UN. they do nothing but hold us back.
    5) repeal any legislation counter to the bill of rights in particular and personal liberty in general.

    for more info, check out The Libertarian Party

    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
  238. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 1

    people usually don't get buried for three days after dying.

    Under Jewish custom people are buried as quickly as possible, ideally the same day.

    I'm non-observant, but this practice has always struck me as a lot more sane than pumping the dead full of preservatives and putting them on display.

  239. My list by Deadplant · · Score: 1

    1) Judicial reform.
    The Justice department has been unable to ensure that the law is applied equally to all citizens.
    One law for all men is arguably the single most important pillar of a free society.

    2) War crimes trials for the Bush administration.
    These trials should also lead to the creation of a new judicial oversight committee with the highest possible security clearance to ensure that the executive branch complies with the law at all times.

    3) Secret agencies and military reform.

    4) Free trade AND free movement of labour.
    One without the other is a recipe for mass subjugation and you know it.
    Now man-up and compete using your skills, not your birthright.

    5) Copyright and intellectual property reform.
    All these laws will be scrapped and a public debate will be started to determine in what way (if at all) they can be re-created.

    6) Campaign reform.
    All campaign advertising will be banned.
    A government agency will purchase airtime on radio and TV and this time will be provided to all candidates evenly.
    Government funded airtime will also be provided for genuine policy debates.
    (also, I would encourage the public to sue the tv networks for false advertising after labelling those things they do 'presidential debates')

  240. Bush by d3xt3r · · Score: 1

    If I were the next president, I'd launch an all-out, full-scale investigation into the scandal of a presidency that was Bush's 8 years in the White House. Oh and Bush, Cheney and company would be hanging out down in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba until I was ready to charge them with crime(s). That's where we hold terrorists right? ;)

  241. My Presidency- I turn 35 1 week before 2012 vote by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

    I don't understand this Slashdot and in general, IT personnel, infatuation with Ron Paul. He is really just the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich in the sense that both are kooky extremists who bring up good points, but in the end are too far too the left and right to be suitable to lead this country. And as for Ron Paul sticking to his guns... why is so much value attached to that? It can be looked at as a foible as well as a virtue. All in all, I think that Ron Paul more poorly represents geeks than many of them realize.

    I digress. My plans as president. Hmmm. So many things... well first off, I believe in nationalizing education. We are falling behind other countries very quickly, and without a strong lead in technology, our economy is doomed to fail. I've seen numerous state boards of education fuck up their states' curricula, especially with regards to science, so I think state control, and even more importantly, local community control causes way more harm than good. Plus, as an Ohioan, I can see that funding schools via property taxes is an abject failure, and encourages poor, ignorant people to stay poor and ignorant. Nationalizing education gets us off the property tax crack, or whatever other funding schemes various states/municipalities have in place. We need to all be on the same page, learning the same material. Is science really different in Texas and Kansas than it is in New York or Oregon? Last time I checked, no, but it is taught differently (see evolution), which is crap. We also need to have national standards for teachers. Basically, there is an overabundance of shitfucks in our public schools, who partied hardy and got shitty grades in college, so they became teachers. That's not always true, and there are many good, if not great teachers out there, but they tend to congregate in the better school systems (see funding issues above) because they don't want to deal with the problems associated with poor, ignorant people's kids, as well as the shittier pay. We need to set higher standards and requirements for K-12 teachers, and provide economic incentives to encourage qualified people to enter the teaching profession and meet those goals.

    Secondly, I would nationalize health care. It makes little sense to have a private industry provide something that EVERYBODY needs. It takes away the maximum advantages of economy of scale. I am not saying that there is not room for private health care, there still would be. But doctors should be forced to work at set prices, determined by local cost of living, that is paid out by the federal government. If they don't like those set prices, they are free to go out on their own and charge what they will to whomever is willing to pay for it. But otherwise, they get paid by the feds. And there definitely needs to be more accountability on the part of doctors- they should not be financially rewarded for screwing up by getting paid for a second operation or procedure. Financial incentives should be provided for more GPs, and for more doctors period in rural areas, or those working in high-traffic urban hospitals. Will this lower pay for doctors? Probably, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're a doctor. And to be honest, doctors are overrated, and have an overly large sense of importance. They are basically mechanics for the human body, with good memories, and good hands if they are a surgeon. In my opinion, that should not be worth more than being an innovative scientist or engineer. And don't give me this bullshit about the time doctors spend in med school and residency, etc. Try getting a PhD in science, followed by a post doc, maybe a government lab position, then trying to climb up the tenure track ladder, all to be rewarded by a salary that may not even clear six figures when you are in your early 50's. There is no reason for medical doctors and science/engineering doctorates to have such a large difference in their pay. It is economically wasteful to be paying bio-mechanics that much.

  242. Homey's master plan to bop the Man by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In no particular order:

    1) Recall U.S. troops from Iraq and probably Afghanistan, and any secret troops in Iran
    2) Reinstitute Habeas Corpus
    3) Initiate investigation into war crimes on the part of previous administration officials, as well as charges of treason (The Bush administration has gone WAY beyond 'impeachable offenses')
    4) Release political prisoners in U.S. (of course this also includes Gitmo/Abuwhatever type places, but let's not forget people like Leonard Peltier, etc.)
    5) Honor existing treaties with Native American tribes.
    6) Appoint N.M. Governor Bill Richardson as Secretary of State, and send his ass out on a very long trip to start repairing U.S. relations abroad. I doubt this dude will be back by the end of my administration.
    7) Find lackeys in Congress to start legislation I suggest, such as: no Congressional payraises unless a proportional increase in the minimum wage is approved at the same time.
    8) Enforcement of the Constitution: try to get laws in place that forbid the kind of things W has been up to. Immediate legal penalties on politicians (including the President) if these laws are broken.
    9) Fix the voting machine mess; mandate a auditable paper trail.
    10) Fix the gerrymandering of voting districts - by either side.
    11) Fix the EPA, and allow states to implement stricter pollution standards (but disallow looser standards)
    12) Legalize, regulate, and tax the holy hell out of Marijuana.
    13) Fully legalize hemp, and provide incentives to switch as much cotton production as is feasible over to hemp. (better for the environment, and actually more profitable for agribusiness.)
    14) Legalize, regulate, and tax the holy hell out of prostitution.
    15) Make lobbying a felony
    16) Change the law so that corporations are not legal entities on a par with an actual human
    17) Make animal abuse a felony, and make people convicted of it tracked; they often have serial killer tendencies.
    18) No more subsidies to corn agribusiness
    19) No more subsidies to oil producers
    20) Much higher energy efficiency standards

    And that's all I have time for now. I got a million of these, though.

    1. Re:Homey's master plan to bop the Man by josepha48 · · Score: 1
      I have a small problem or need clarification with #1 and #17.

      What constitutes animal abuse? Is feeding live fish to a pet fish that only eats live fish animal abuse? What would you consider how we keep chickens, cows and other livestock that we use for food as? Some call it abuse others call it food.

      As for #1, would this be a complete immediate withdrawal or planned? I could see a complete withdrawal as causing problems. It would probably cause terrorists to move into Iraq or Iran to attack Iraq, which could be even worse.

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!
      Does slashdot hate my posts?

    2. Re:Homey's master plan to bop the Man by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      What constitutes animal abuse?

      I was thinking more along the lines of what you see on Animal Cops. That list was just a quick one I had time for while letting a work problem digest in my head for a bit. Food production is an entirely different issue, that also needs a lot of work.

      As for #1, would this be a complete immediate withdrawal or planned? I could see a complete withdrawal as causing problems. It would probably cause terrorists to move into Iraq or Iran to attack Iraq, which could be even worse.

      I'd love an immediate withdrawal, but yeah, there would be problems. Whether there's a civil war there or not is really not our concern, though I think a well thought out (speedy) phased withdrawal, worked up in cooperation with those in the area, would be the best idea. This would be a great first job for my preferred Secretary of State, Bill Richardson (four-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee) to work on.

      A few more things to do:

      *) Order the official integration of gays/lesbians/whatevers into the military. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is discrimination, plain and simple.
      *) Universal health care
      *) End the party system
      *) Try to get all 50 states to issue electoral college votes proportionally (avoids the Constitutional amendment problem, and makes it match popular vote more closely, while still giving a bit more weight to the smaller states. Some states do this already, I think.)
      *) Phased withdrawal from South Korea
      *) Like other nerds here, repeal DMCA, Patriot Act, Net neutrality, copyright & patent reform, etc.
      *) Government no longer endorses or restricts marriage. Restriction not allowed on a state level; government (federal or local) has no business being in the marriage business.
      *) No more tax waiver for churches.

      Okay, back to work.

    3. Re:Homey's master plan to bop the Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Recall U.S. troops from Iraq and probably Afghanistan, and any secret troops in Iran
      I agree! As a follow up, I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    4. Re:Homey's master plan to bop the Man by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I agree! As a follow up, I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      What?! You're just an Anonymous Coward. You can't make that kind of call. (No offense.)

    5. Re:Homey's master plan to bop the Man by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Legalize marijuana and prostitution, but outlaw the legal right to participate in politics via lobbying? Release terrorists back to the wild? Destroy the concept that a corporation founded in the US isn't given the protection due to "US Persons", as have all US corporations for the past 100+ years? "Fix" the EPA by applying "your" standards? I'll vote Kucinich before I vote for you!

    6. Re:Homey's master plan to bop the Man by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Legalize marijuana and prostitution, but outlaw the legal right to participate in politics via lobbying? Release terrorists back to the wild? Destroy the concept that a corporation founded in the US isn't given the protection due to "US Persons", as have all US corporations for the past 100+ years? "Fix" the EPA by applying "your" standards? I'll vote Kucinich before I vote for you!

      Wow, that's a lot of nonsense, but here we go:

      Outlaw the right to participate in politics via lobbying: What I mean is - INDIVIDUALS should be the only ones trying to influence their representatives. Corporations don't need any representation other than by those INDIVIDUALS that work for them. I like the way you put in 'the LEGAL right to' - it's only legal because it hasn't been made ILLEGAL, which is what I was talking about doing, changing the laws.

      Release terrorists back into the wild: I never said to release terrorists. I said to close illegal and immortal camps. If they're really terrorists, put them in prisons in the U.S. and let them enjoy the same rights that any human born here normally has. We need to regain the moral high ground. We should definitely release all those known-non-terrorists that are in those camps.

      Destroy the concept that a corporation founded in the US isn't given the protection due to "US Persons": Yeah, because a corporation is not a human being. It should be given some rights to protect the people that work for it, sure, and help it be FAIRLY competitive in the marketplace (protection from monopolies, etc.), but anything beyond that is not in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S., which is my priority.

      "Fix" the EPA by applying "your" standards: My standards are generally those of the concensus of reputable scientists. When reputable scientists update their findings, I tend to update my standards when I find out about it. It's called an 'open' mind. You should check into it sometime. The standards in, say, California, are a good starting point, and California is having to SUE the EPA just to get the right to make better standards in their own state. That's flat out ridiculous. If a state wants BETTER standards, why should the EPA have any objection?

      I'll vote Kucinich before I vote for you: You know, I've *heard* (not confirmed) that when you take both party's candidate's stated positions on the issues, strip away their identity, and just present the info to people (and I don't know whether it was presented to just Democrats or Republicans or both), that most people prefer Kucinich's positions on the issues. This may be bullshit, but I wouldn't be surprised. There's something that creeps me out about the guy, but I'd certainly vote for him before any of the nutbags running for the GOP nomination. It's like the GOP had a contest for the worst possible candidates this year. Much like the Democrats did in 2000 and 2004.

      As an independent, I tend to vote for the lesser of two evils. I've voted for Republicans before (though strangely, when I vote for them, they always lose. Go figure.)

  243. What I'd do by dawhippersnapper · · Score: 1

    I'd reform the current Trademark, Copyright, and Patent laws.

    I would do my best to end Government Corruption. Kickbacks get you kicked out!

    I would also get rid of this whole Mexican Border Wall thing. I would instead put that money into reliable sources to build warehouses and roads in Mexico to give them immediate jobs on the building projects and sustainability in their economy for better jobs later. This would alleviate the main problem, which is immigrants wanting to come here for better jobs.

    I would not remove all troops from Iraq, but would definitely downsize and do our best to get the majority of our troops out within 5 years.

    --
    Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it.
  244. Ron Paul: Racist or Opportunist by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
    Who am I supposed to believe - you, or the NAACP president who has known Paul for 20 years? Tough one there, but I think I'll choose the latter. Beleive what he published under his own name.

    Friends make the most unreliable judges of character. If the NAACP president was making an impartial judgement on the basis of the record that might be convincing.

    Oswald Mosley had quite a few Jewish friends who were taken completely by surprise when he suddenly turned into a fascist. Some of them even denied that he was an anti-semite after he became a fascist. There was apparently a notorious dinner party at which Mosley stated that he thought it necessary for his party to have a 'hate plank'. He was a racist by opportunity, not conviction.

    Nobody disputes the racism of the newsletters published in Ron Paul's name for so many years. Either the newsletters represent Paul's views in which case he is a racist or they do not in which case he is an opportunist which is considerably worse.

    Most NAZIs were not anti-semites by conviction, they just found it convienient to join the party and adopt its ideology.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  245. A real list.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Prohibit the use of party names or affiliations in all documents, correspondence, and other uses in the executive department. I want good people and good ideas, and I don't want political baggage attached to them.

    2. Designate corruption in an elected or appointed government officeholder to be treason and a capital offense.

    3. Dissolve the Department of Education and return education to the states.

    4. Prohibit DOJ from invoking "states secret" privilege to avoid lawsuits against the government and appoint a special court to hear those cases properly.

    5. Announce a new US foreign policy doctrine.
            - abandon the doctrine of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
            - abandon the doctrine of converting non-democracies to democracies
            - abandon the doctrine of being the world's policeman, teacher, or conscience
            - respect sovereignty of all nations' borders with regards to things we don't like, but that are not a cognizable threat to the US. Absent a threat to the US or a treaty nation with the US, a sovereign country has the right to do whatever the hell they want inside their borders. If they want to execute an ethnic group or religion, then so be it. They want a theocracy? Fine. If they are bad rulers, the US response is limited to a) our own economic activity (such as boycot) and b) persuading other countries to do the same.
            - adopt a "right to preemptive response" doctrine, that we will act against a sovereign nation inside its own border if that sovereign is a direct threat to the US or a US treaty nation.

    6. Build a damn fence and shoot people that climb it -- and let anyone (noncriminal) in who wants to come here to work (for up to 10 years) that DOESN'T climb the fence. If you are here illegally, then go back home and come back in legally and get papers.... but you can't become a citizen if you have ever entered illegally.

    7. Push for the Fair Tax.

    I would also campaign for 8 Constitutional Amendments:

    1. Term limits on Congress.
    2. Single subject matter requirement for congressional bills.
    3. Line item veto for president on spending/budget bills.
    4. Except for a declaration of war, all bills before Congress must be published publically in final form no less than 48 hours before a vote on the bill.
    5. Modify the 16th Amendment to allow for imposition of a federal income tax (both apportioned and unapportioned) only if a state of war is has been declared by Congress, and all monies collected by income tax are under direct and exclusive control of the commander in chief and shall be dedicated to the prosecution of the war. Any income tax imposed shall expire 2 year after enactment. (Federal revenue should come principally from a national sales tax or VAT with exemptions for low income households).
    6. Corruption by an elected or appointed public officeholder or government employee shall constitute treason and be subject to death penalty and forfeiture of all worldly possessions.
    7. Repeal the 17th Amendment so that the state legislatures appoint their state's senators.
    8. Provide that the states, by resolution of a majority of states, may call a constitutional convention for the limited purpose of proposing one or more single subject-matter constitutional amendments which would then be submitted to the states after the convention for ratification by 3/4 of the states. Amendments enacted by this process will be limited to no more than 10 years of operation, and amendments made by this process shall not alter the amendment process itself.

  246. Election Reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one thing that no politician can actually accomplish, since any politicial elected has to use the system and thus becomes part of the system.

    The Electorial college and delegate voting are anachronisims from teh days when someoen had to collect a tally and ride on a horse for 3 weeks to the capital to vote. Do away with middle tier voting crutches for a time losg past and and institute a popular vote system.

    The problem isn't the politicians we elect. It's the system that puts us in the position that our choices are poor to begin with. Reform starts with how we conduct our elections, and removing power from the small herd of individuals and parties that dictate how things will happen.

  247. Prosecute Bush and Cheney for War Crimes by aminorex · · Score: 1

    I would charge the attorney general with prosecuting the members of the current administration with War Crimes under title 18 of the US Code.

    I would announce a plan to withdraw all US forces to within US borders or international waters except in cases of the use of facilities for forward placement under terms of mutual agreement with a legitimately elected government, and introduce legislation to make all other deployments of military forces without a declaration of war, except in cases where congress is unable to convene and then only for a limited period, a capital crime.

    I would introduce legislation to provide tuition credit vouchers to all residents of the US who pass standardized entrance examinations for their level of education, with preferrential allocation for study in specializations of greater need.

    I would introduce a program to study the control of insolation by the placement of mylar mirrors in orbit.

    I would introduce a program to study the control of atmospheric carbon by ocean seeding.

    I would introduce a program to coordinate humanitarian efforts of volunteers and NGOs for purposes of nutrition and medical care in under-served areas of the earth.

    I would introduce tax incentives for small business creation.

    I would introduce legislation to balance the federal budget immediately, and to dissolve the IRS, and the department of education.

    I would announce an amnesty for all persons convicted of non-violent drug offenses.

    I would withdraw all illegal clandestine agents to US borders, and release all state secrets to the public, to save democracy.

    I would introduce an amendment to the constitution allowing any state to secede from the union on a 2/3 vote of a plebescite.

    I would introduce an amendment to the constitution protecting the right of personal medical self-determination.

    I would introduce an amendment to the constitution limiting copyrights and patents to 17 years.

    I would introduce legislation to issue currency backed by a rolling basket of futures, to perpetually keep inflation at 0%.

    I would introduce an amendment to the constitution prohibiting the issuance of currency without commensurate commodity exchange value, or the passage of a budget which did not produce a surplus during peacetime.

    I would open the borders to immigration by all persons who are not deemed to be a threat to the public.

    I would introduce an amendment to the constitution requiring rank voting, abolishing political parties, limiting campaigns to one month, and supplying public information distribution channels to all candidates meeting minimum petition counts.

    I would introduce legislation to reverse the effect of Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific, denying corporations the fiction of juridical personhood.

    I would introduce legislation to require all able persons to participate in local militia training one week annually, from ages 18 to 32, and compelling all able persons to respond to the local sheriff in cases of emergency.

    I would introduce an amendment to the constitution to prohibit the use of the death penalty in peacetime except for capital murder witnessed by two eyewitnesses, consistent with material evidence, upon the finding of a jury.

    I would institute a special prosecutor to investigate drug smuggling using CIA assets.

    I would institute an independent panel with unlimited subpeona power to investigate financial and terrorist crimes by associates of the intelligence community.

    I would introduce an amendment to the constitution making the secretaries of the departments elected officials, likewise the members of the supreme court, and restoring the control of the senate to the state legislatures, as well as abolishing the electoral college.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  248. To-Do by umbrellasd · · Score: 1
    1. Return us to the spirit of the Constitution.
    2. Legalize marijuana and then regulate it like cigarettes (tax it, prohibit it in public areas, etc.). Assess the viability of this approach for other drugs.
    3. Aim for a 10% reduction in government (staff and budget) in the first term (federal performance initiative for government agencies).
    4. Create a realistic plan for socialized health care (a minimum level of care for all in conjunction with the current private sector approach).
    5. 10% reduction in military presence in foreign nations.
    6. Education reform; tougher standards with an emphasis on vocational work and in-the-field experience for attaining credentials from elementary skill all the way through University.
    7. Get us away from coal. Emphasize funding for safe nuclear and efficient solar energy. Create strong incentives for carbon-free transportation.
    8. Restoration of civil liberties that have been grossly eroded in the name of anti-terrorism (right to privacy chief among them)
    9. Overhaul the copyright system. It's not what it was originally meant to be and what it was originally was better than what it is now, despite the fact that the world of intellectual property is vastly different today.
    10. We need stronger federal mandates on protection of natural habitats. Urban sprawl is a significant problem. There should be stronger constraints on population density as well as requirements for pollution, energy efficiency, and so on that a city must meet on an ongoing basis for a given population. (This is to encourage reuse and recycling before discarding and expanding into new areas).
    11. ...
    It's not what you would do that matters. It's whether you can make it happen within the constraints of the current system when so many wealthy people are committed to the very lucrative status quo.
  249. My Somewhat Realistic Goals by jcenters · · Score: 1

    This is by no means a complete list.

    Phase 1: Fixing the Bush Mess (First 100 Days)

    1. Go on a world tour. Meet with world leaders, extend a friendly hand, and basically try to smooth things out. Might hire Obama to tag along, he seems like he'd be good at that sort of thing.
    2. Begin a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. A roughly eight-percent reduction every month for twelve months. In the meantime, petition the U.N. to establish a multi-national peacekeeping force, with the consent of the Iraqi government and assistance from the U.S., of course.
    3. Place more troops into Afghanistan, where they should have been in the first place.
    4. Revitalize our hunt for bin Laden.
    5. Other than 1-4, stop screwing with the Middle East, and tell them as such.
    6. Work toward making airport security a more pleasant process. Get rid of the liquid rules and shoe checks that are not only annoying, but degrading.
    7. Push a bill through Congress, called the AMERICAN Act (I'll hire someone who can make that an acronym), that will steeply scale back provisions of both the DMCA and the PATRIOT Act. We'll tack some anti-torture legislation in there as well.

    That doesn't completely fix the mess, but it's a good step forward. It also kills two birds with one stone. If 2-6 succeed, they'll grant me more popular support, so I don't have to spend so damn long campaigning.

    Phase 2: Moving America Forward

    1. Work to have NCLB repealed.
    2. Take some of that defense money we're no longer blowing in Iraq and put it toward an initiative to make fiber-optic internet available in every home. Yes, I know about dark fiber. Basically, it'll be like how FDR spread telephone lines during the depression. It'll build up our infrastructure and create jobs.
    3. Give NASA a mandate to return to the Moon and eventually Mars, and actually fund it.
    4. Threaten to withhold education funds from any state not teaching evolution or promoting ID in a science class.
    5. Roll back faith-based initiatives.

    Phase 3: Loose Ends

    Here we'll tackle some misc. issues that will also help my re-election chances.

    1. Unveil a universal health-care bill. Not sure on the details, but a crucial component would be protecting individual rights. For instance, if you're on govt-ran healthcare, you won't be forced at gunpoint to stop eating bacon and smoking. Personally, I envision a government-owned corporation, sort of like the Post Office.
    2. Unveil a new tax code that reduces loopholes and paperwork. No, not a national sales tax or a "flat tax," though it would most likely be flatter than what we have now.
    3. Step up illegal immigrant enforcement. No, we won't be wasting resources on border patrols. Instead, we'll focus on employers who hire illegals. Yeah, okay, that'll be tricky to work out.

    Phase 4: Second Term

    Cover issues that would hurt reelection chances. Pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Open relations with Cuba. Massive DEA cuts.

    Introduce a bill that would decriminalize marijuana, thus reducing strain on the prison system. But here's the catch: It'll boost sentences and enforcement for harder drugs, like coke and meth. It'll also fund treatment centers for addicts. If congress doesn't pass it, I'll accuse them of being soft on drugs.

    Pour resources into alternative fuels. Give a hard push to nuclear + Electric/diesel hybrids. Cut back ethanol funding, but instead put it toward biodiesel.

    Also, we'd work on copyright, patents, and all that good stuff. Smack down the RIAA/MPAA and their lawsuits. Probably push tort reform for that matter.

    In my last days, I guess I'd do what every other president does and give that whole Middle East peace thing a shot.

    --

    vi ~/.emacs

    1. Re:My Somewhat Realistic Goals by DrEasy · · Score: 1

      I'd vote for you. I particularly agree with 1.2, I've been advocating it in my own presidential program somewhere in this thread! :)

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
  250. I'd solve all of our problems at once. by Sgt_Jake · · Score: 1
    By making the top 5% pay 90% of the taxes. NOT, mind you, pay a 90% tax... they pay 90% of the ~taxes~ this country needs to operate. I can pretty much guarantee that government waste, pork, pet projects and a billion other little problems (like unnecessary wars, lobbiests, and so on) would evaporate over night.

    I'd like to point out that our founders pledged their lives, THEIR FORTUNES, and their sacred honor. We should expect nothing less from our leaders - and if they're true Americans, they'd gladly do it. If not... Patriot act v.2?

  251. my Presidential platform in part by m2bord · · Score: 1

    1) push a constitutional amendment to define and protect individual privacy
    2) define any good, service, or company not based in the U.S. as a foreign country and their goods/services will be taxed as imports
    3) move to have student loans eligible for inclusion into a bankruptcy discharge
    4) expand the list of capital crimes to include crimes against children, habitual violent offenders, certain drug offenses, and creators of bad movies
    5) insure that those convicted of enron type crimes pay back every dime taken from workers even if it means losing their homes and cars
    6) create a salary ceiling where the highest paid employee at a company cannot receive more than 100x's higher in salary and benefits than the lowest paid employee.
    7) the military will get a hefty pay increase as will key government workers. the number of people with the title of director, asst. director, supervisor, or other quasi-managerial position will be reduced.
    8) there will be one national educational curriculum
    9) there will be no more than one school district, one superintendent of schools, or one assistant superintendent of schools in any one county/parish.
    10) health care reform will include reducing pricing for health services to levels that insurers pay providers (if an insurer gets to pay $1,800 on a $20,000 hospital bill then the average citizen should be able to pay that amount as well)
    11) no business nor organization will be able to compile data on any individual without that individual's expressed consent ( i know that it's #1 restated but privacy and the right to be left alone are very important to me)
    12) telemarketing and marketing via email or any other medium where the recipient winds up paying for delivery will be outlawed.

    i've got more but i don't want to bore you...

    --
    Is it 5:30 yet?
  252. I could do it, so could you. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    > And let someone who knows what they're doing operate.

    Perhaps you are a defective and really wouldn't be fit to hold the office, but odds are you haev simply bought into some stupid notions and perhaps suffer from really low self confidence. Me, I know I could be an above average POTUS. It's actually fairly easy.

    1. Realize the position wasn't intended to be the near God-King we have turned it into over the last century.

    2. Articulate a clear set of guiding principles to the Executive Branch, then pick some solid competent people who are willing to actually implement those principles instead of trying to impose their own. This is the important part that trips up most administrations because it is the root cause of all of the internal backbiting and politicing. The unitary executive is the key ingredient in a successful administration. With it you don't have endless leaks, power struggles, etc.

    3. Tell the 'smart people' who will insist you slave away for 16-20 hours per day doing meaningless bullshit because every previous POTUS did it to STFU and go play golf.

    4. When an executive decision is required, pull in the dozen or so people most qualified to offer an opinion in, hear them all out and then make a decision. Recognize up front that even with the best advice that a fair number will be judged 'wrong' by history but the most important thing in most affairs is making A decision instead of endless dithering. The problem is that on any tough decision that isn't a simple binary choice everyone who you overrule will all agree that you made the wrong choice and hate you. The key is ignoring em.

    Notice nothing in that requires a super genius, a super education or anything beyond average ability.

    Personally my guiding principles would be:

    1. The Constituition is back. In 99% of cases reading it first will tell you where I'll be so you can save the trouble of asking.

    1a. Because the Ronulans and most Dims have trouble with this idea, the Constituition does not forbid war. We are currently at war and there is no such thing as 'ending' a War; you win or lose them and losing them has really undesirable consequences. Vigorious debate before the war is both desirable and Patrotic, anklebiting and lending aid to enemies after the choice to begin a War is not.

    2. Less government is better government. State government is better than Federal government. See Amendments 9 & 10 when unclear on this point.

    3. Laws are either to be repealed or enforced. This includes Immigration. It also includes the War on Some Drugs, although there I would like to be on the record as favoring the repeal part in most cases.

    4. Judges rule on the law and Constituition as written, any attempts to legislate from the bench will be seen as an act of usurpation of the Rightful powers reserved to the other two branches and considered as just cause to commence proceedings for removal on those grounds.

    5. In spite of my above support for crushing our enemies on the battlefield I don't like our international entanglements. Out of the UN, NATO, etc. and the only bases which we should have are those which directly serve US interests. Some Naval and Air bases are needed to allow us to project power when needed but I really don't see why we are still in Germany or Korea with large numbers of ground forces.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:I could do it, so could you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...there is no such thing as 'ending' a War; you win or lose them...

      I suppose you could choose a particular outcome and define it as "win" while defining everything else as "lose" - or you could define a particular outcome as "lose" and everything else as "win".

      On the other hand, if you were to abandom such arbitrary logic distinctions and consider a complex situation like Iraq then the outcomes aren't going to all fall neatly into either a "win" category or a "lose" category.

      For example, consider the democracy/puppet-government axis. A full-on Jeffersonian democracy that reflects the will of the people is going to have close ties to Iran (and, as long as the USA is. On the other hand, a full-on puppet government will (by definition) have close ties to the USA but (by definition) will be lacking the democracy part. If you're wanting both democracy and close ties to the USA then neither extreme (or even a middle ground between the extremes) will give you all of what you want.

      Of course things could get even more complicated with Iraq getting partitioned into separate countries. Bottom line, any real win/loss assessment of outcomes in Iraq is going to yield a very mixed bag.

      ...and losing them has really undesirable consequences.

      Life is complicated. Winning also has really undesirable consequences. Is winning better than losing? Usually. Is continuing to fight better than losing? Depends. Would continuing to fight in Vietnam have been better than "losing"? Maybe, maybe not. If continuing to fight had resulted in an all out war between the USA and China then not. If continuing to fight had resulted in a prolonged occupation of Vietnam (stretching into the 80's) then it's hard to say - probably better for some and worse for others.

    2. Re:I could do it, so could you. by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      Vigorious debate before the war is both desirable and Patrotic, anklebiting and lending aid to enemies after the choice to begin a War is not.

      So you wouldn't call Claus von Stauffenberg a patriot?

      I don't see why a sense of morality ends when your country starts military action.

    3. Re:I could do it, so could you. by Eskarel · · Score: 1
      I just love people who talk about legislating from the bench. Personally, I think that one of the biggest problems with the American legal system is that it's become too much about the letter of the law and not enough about the intent of the law. If I had my way, instead of a bunch of legalese that only lawyers can navigate that's full of loop holes and which tends to become totally out of step with reality when any of it's major presumptions change, laws would basically revolve around a statement of intent.

      Then when we had court cases instead of a bunch of lawyers talking about loopholes and out of date assumptions, we'd have a simple decision, does the intent of this law cover this and is the intent something we believe in.

      Unfortunately we don't have that and so we need judges to interpret the intent of the law to cover things that the people who wrote it didn't know or were wrong about. Perhaps in your "repeal or enforce" system you'd keep laws more up to date and this wouldn't be as necessary, but applying the ideals of people who didn't know about electricity, computers, or even automobiles, thought women and minorities shouldn't be able to vote, and lived in a totally different society than the one we live in today requires a certain degree of interpretation.

    4. Re:I could do it, so could you. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      We are currently at war and there is no such thing as 'ending' a War; you win or lose them and losing them has really undesirable consequences.

      Indeed, you might even lose an inch of penis size! On the other hand, fewer people get killed and in many cases, the ultimate end result is almost as good as if you stayed in and won. Seriously, I can name plenty of examples of wars where, if one side just gave up halfway through and decided to sue for peace, they would have been much better off. Discretion is the better part of valor, and pigheadedness in a cause whose costs have far exceeded any possible benefits is simple pigheadedness, not courage. Any leader who sends wave after wave of men into a pointless war simply for the sake of saving face is a coward morally responsible for each and every one of their needless deaths.

      Vigorious debate before the war is both desirable and Patrotic, anklebiting and lending aid to enemies after the choice to begin a War is not.

      Don't give us that rehashed Vietnam bullshit. When the public is lied into a war, they have every right to turn against it when the jig is up and the trickery revealed. When the cost of war has far exceeded any possible benefit, it's the public's responsibility to pull the plug. But that's not the damning point at all--if you have to choose to begin a war, the war is automatically wrong and you are the aggressor. At that point, the only saving grace you have left as a free country is whether or not you allow your own citizens to dissent. A warmongering democracy where a minority of the population speaks out against its government's aggression is only slightly better than a warmongering dictatorship where all dissent is suppressed, but it is better. The true enemy of Russia was the Soviet government, not Czechoslovakia. And the true enemy of America is not foreign, but domestic.

      Judges rule on the law and Constituition as written, any attempts to legislate from the bench will be seen as an act of usurpation of the Rightful powers reserved to the other two branches and considered as just cause to commence proceedings for removal on those grounds.

      In other words, the Supreme Court can only make rulings you agree with. "Legislating from the bench" is a bullshit notion that stems from a complete ignorance of the common law system. See, your implicit assumption is that the law (specifically the Constitution), as written, express simply and exactly what to do in a given situation, and that the Court's job is to simply read it and apply it to the case at hand. That's called a civil law system. In that kind of system, court precedents aren't binding (and are indeed unimportant) since the law specifically states what it means in implementation-level detail.

      The common law system is a little different. Under common law, the law is only supposed to state the general principle at hand, with the specific details worked out case-by-case by educated jurists. As each case is handled, the precedent of that case is used to inform future judgments in a process known as stare decisis. Try actually reading the Constitution--"equal protection under the law" (14th amendment), "regulate commerce with foreign nations and between the several states", "general welfare", "necessary and proper", "regarding the establishment of a religion", "cruel and unusual", etc. are all very vague phrases whose meanings and applicability to a given situation require significant judgment calls and good-faith attempts to apply general principles.

      And aside from all that, you seem to take the solipsistic view that even for a vaguely-written Constitution meant to apply general principles, its true meaning is very clear and simple to you and that no one, in good faith, could possibly interpret it differently than you do.

      In short, your presidency would be defined by warmongering, squashing of dissent, arrogance, and despite your salutory neglect towards most issues, a highly dangerous and unconstitutional consolidation of power on the few matters you do consider important. I hardly see an improvement over the current situation here.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    5. Re:I could do it, so could you. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      If I had my way, instead of a bunch of legalese that only lawyers can navigate that's full of loop holes and which tends to become totally out of step with reality when any of it's major presumptions change, laws would basically revolve around a statement of intent. Then when we had court cases instead of a bunch of lawyers talking about loopholes and out of date assumptions, we'd have a simple decision, does the intent of this law cover this and is the intent something we believe in.

      Congratulations, you've just reinvented the English common law. Seriously, the idea is that laws are supposed to be a statement of intent. The problem is, "does the intent of this law cover this" is a really, really difficult question when you deal with vague intentions on one hand, and real situations on the other. Jurisprudence is a lot simpler in countries where laws are written more casuistically.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    6. Re:I could do it, so could you. by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > On the other hand, fewer people get killed and in many cases, the ultimate end result is almost as good as if you stayed in and won.

      Name one. Korea was called off in midwar and millions of people groan under the yoke of one of the most repressive regeims on the Earth while the people of South Korea live under the constant threat of attack by a certifiable madman. Vietnamn went into the loss column and millions died throughout the region leading to the US finally taking pity on the poor wretches that managed to escape and taking in the few remaining survivors. But for every one of the lucky boat people who made it to our shores how many died? And the blame goes to gutless worms such as yourself.

      > But that's not the damning point at all--if you have to choose to begin a war, the war is automatically wrong and you are the aggressor.

      I'm sure you are just a clueless product of governent education so I'll try not to hold it against you. BUt if you would care to look for yourself you will find there was a healthy debate before wars that you probably figure didn't require any. Yup, even WWI and WWII had fairly large contengients of ignorant peace at any cost asshole such as yourself sitting in the hallowed halls of Congress. Some of the arguments for some of the wars actually had rational cases on each side, others less savory such as the not insignificant pro nazi faction in the US who argued we should have entered the war on that side. The difference was that once the debate was finished and the votes counted they understood that the decision was made and that the country would no longer regard continued argument as constructive debate.

      > "Legislating from the bench" is a bullshit notion that stems from a complete ignorance of the common law system.

      Wrong. There ARE grey areas where judges are faced with conflicting laws, laws that fail to account for a specific situation they are facing, etc. Those corner cases are not what I'm on about though and I suspect you know it. Judges now write new taxes onto the lawbooks. Gay marriage and abortion aren't the most egregious abuses these days, we could survive those. A Judge, properly bound by the laws isn't a very powerful position. This is why the Founders considered the Judicial branch the least powerful. Few would make that claim today. What changed is they decided that instead of simply applying the law as written they would take it unpon themselves to seek 'Cosmic Justice' instead of simply giving claiments the rule of law.

      > And aside from all that, you seem to take the solipsistic view that even for a vaguely-written Constitution meant to apply
      > general principles, its true meaning is very clear and simple to you and that no one, in good faith, could possibly interpret
      > it differently than you do.

      Simple. The Constituition is very specific in granting the government a few limited functions but is mostly concerned with DENYING it authority in broad areas, especially the Bill of Rights. Those are the clearest parts and I'd guess I could spend two full terms just pushing the government OUT of things it clearly should not be involved with. Adn yes the Constituition IS written in very simple language that a teen should have no problems with comprehending, that you find it vague speaks volumes about your government education.

      Find me the authority for any of the following:

      1. The Dept of Education

      2. Dept of Energy

      3. Dept of the Interior (National Parks especially)

      4. Food and Drug Administration

      5. Department of Health and Human Services

      6. Department of Agriculture

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    7. Re:I could do it, so could you. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Name one. Korea was called off in midwar and millions of people groan under the yoke of one of the most repressive regeims on the Earth while the people of South Korea live under the constant threat of attack by a certifiable madman. Vietnamn went into the loss column and millions died throughout the region leading to the US finally taking pity on the poor wretches that managed to escape and taking in the few remaining survivors. But for every one of the lucky boat people who made it to our shores how many died? And the blame goes to gutless worms such as yourself.

      Had we stayed in Korea or Vietnam, we would have ended up with the same result, but it would have taken longer with more deaths. Vietnam's even a US trading partner at this point in time, and South Korea was successfully and victoriously defended from its invaders. But I was referring more specifically to Napoleon, imperial Japan, etc.--all of whom would still hold vast empires today if they didn't continue the wars they started as long as they did. We can learn from the histories of other countries.

      I'm sure you are just a clueless product of governent education so I'll try not to hold it against you.

      I'm sure you're a complete asshole, and I will hold it against you. There's no place for that kind of nonsense, and if that's how you address people who disagree with you you'd be an even worse president than I thought.

      BUt if you would care to look for yourself you will find there was a healthy debate before wars that you probably figure didn't require any. Yup, even WWI and WWII had fairly large contengients of ignorant peace at any cost asshole such as yourself sitting in the hallowed halls of Congress.

      "Fairly large contingents" sitting in Congress? In World War I the vote to declare war on Germany was 373-50, but seeing what entering that war did for Germany, Russia, France, Britain, etc., I can understand that. In World War II, only Jeannette Rankin voted against the declaration of war against Japan, and no one voted against the war declarations against Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. You bring up World War I, which for most participants was a vivid example of why not to get into a war if you don't absolutely need to. Had the rest of Europe not decided to intervene in what was originally an Austrio-Hungarian crackdown on the Serbs in response to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, millions of people would not have been killed, World War II would most probably have never happened either, and, although nothing is for sure, it's highly possible that without the distraction of the war, imperial Russia may have been better equipped to prevent the rise of the communists in Russia.

      The difference was that once the debate was finished and the votes counted they understood that the decision was made and that the country would no longer regard continued argument as constructive debate.

      Our involvement in World War I only lasted from April 1917 to November 1918, hardly long enough to even grow war weary, and partially because of our involvement, that's when the stalemate broke. In World War II, a considerable propaganda effort was necessary throughout the war to maintain public involvement. Furthermore, the stakes were higher--no one honestly believed, in contrast, that North Vietnam would ever land on the West Coast like the Japanese were planning to. So honestly, you may be right about those few wars a country should involve itself in, but you can't have it both ways. Either you only get into a war when it's a question of national self-preservation, or you accept the fact that some wars are voluntary and that in a democracy, the people have a right to dissent against continuing such a war.

      Wrong. There ARE grey areas where judges are faced with conflicting laws, laws that fail to account for a spe

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  253. First Things First by jetpack · · Score: 1

    I'd get to the bottom of this whole Area 51 business!

  254. If I were President... by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 1

    ...I would free the slaves.

  255. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity - which points?
    Repairations. I prefer something similar to what Canada does with the First Nations (ie, Native Americans) - they live tax free. Something similar might be more workable. Besides if you give repairations to African Americans, what about all the other groups that have been f*cked over like the Chinese, Mexicans, and most of all, Native Americans?

    The issue is complex and repairations are not my preferred answer to the problem.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  256. First step by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    Reform the election process.
    Second step: order a new election with the new election rules.

    Seriously, I don't want the job. Although taking a cue from Brazil I might consider cutting off welfare to families who's children have failing grades and taking a cue from China offer $1000 cash to anybody who willingly surrenders their rights to reproduce.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  257. Vote for me! by capn_buzzcut · · Score: 1

    First of all, I'd pass a law that requires life to be completely fair to everybody at all times. Who doesn't want that? Then I'd make sure that nobody had to pay taxes unless they wanted to, but the government would still take care of all the people that didn't really want to work. When we run out of money, I'll just print more - easy! Then all those folks around the world that say they hate us so much - I'd do everything they want PLUS give them all ponies, or maybe puppy dogs. Whichever they want. Prolly just give them ponies AND puppies, and do everything they want, that's got to work. How could they hate us then? Then I'd bring all the troops home - unless they wanted to stay of course, totally up to them, or the people that care about them, or the people that write a letter or march or go on TV. I'd probably just go by whatever the person in front of me at that moment says. Wait, just bring, like 50% of the troops home, and tell half of Iraq to kiss our butts, but then give them an EXTRA pony and puppy dog. Problem solved! After that, I'd fix the hole in the ozone layer, save all the endangered animals, and admit there really are UFO's. Now think about it, when I get done doing all that stuff, Mexico will probably want to become a part of the USA right? They'll be begging us - we wouldn't even have to bomb them or anything. Since we've already got a "New Mexico" we could call them "Old Mexico", or maybe "Mexico Classic". And here's the genius of my plan - once they become a state, immigration wouldn't be so much of a problem then, would it? I tell you, I've been planning this for a long time, and I've got it all worked out. VOTE FOR ME!!

    --
    "And now, Frank N. Furter, your time has come. Say 'goodbye' to all of this, and 'hello'... to oblivion!"
  258. Re:He is not a racist by darjen · · Score: 1
    http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19185278&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=618959&rfi=6

    When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name. The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.


    I'm not disputing the racism in the letters. I am disputing that Ron wrote them and that he agrees with those sentiments. Just as he said in his statement above.
  259. So much to do, so little time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) reduce the government size

    2) create a *small* government group that reviews the budget of other agencies (to ensure they are spending what money they get wisely, how in need they are of extra money and for what purpose or if they are getting too much) where it will be given to congress, the organizations that is reviewed, and the public. The group in question will have a set constant budget that changes with inflation over time (only changable by congress budget review)

    3) rework the education system

    4) rework copyright

    5) rework the patent system
    *note on 4 and 5: basically reduce it's lenght but also try to reduce the public's reliance on them for protection (reduce number of people that can get them by tightly increasing restrictions of acceptance), make it a small fee for application to process, but limit how many can be applied for in a lenght of time, add a penalty fee for grossly obvious applications that will fail (things applied for even though it fails to meet many simple requirements)

    6) using step 2, try to push for a more organized and efficient government, especially for groups like the irs

    7) reduce income tax as the government if smaller but more importantly, (hopefully) spending it's money wiser by this time

    8) revoke the dmca, patriot act, and other stupid laws

    9) push for a more free market (specifically in the broadband area) and plenty of other places, those markets with natural monopolies, push for specific laws that ensures public rights

    10) push for a change of the election system, instead of a winners takes all system, design a new system where % of support = % of power within the governemnt (ensuring no one group will have full control and ensuring small minority groups continue to have a say)

    11) reduce milatary presence and reliance (keeping enough for defense, for rapid deployment and expansion in times of need, while getting rid of outdated and useless parts of the military), setup a mandatory system of military reduction after it's need for expansion is over

    12) try to improve upon foreign relationship, get out of the role as world police and look for a more cooperative role in managing the world

    13) Balance the budget! aim to improve export and reduce reliance on imports (and not through tarrifs but through home incentives as tarrifs hurts the public as much as it helps)

    14) promote greater research on a national level

    15) promote efforts in reducing the reliance on oil, efforts to build nuclear reactors, recycle nuclear waste, promote "green" energy like that of solar, tax people greater for wasteful usage of energy and provide incentives for those to use less

    16) promote greater efforts in recycling resources in general

    17) legalize hemp

    18) teach the public that the government is not a babysitter and is there to perform only it's primary duties (to protect and to safely ensure the stability of it's citizen's lives), things that can be done at a lower level of the government, should be done at that level

    19) fix the whole transportation system in most of the us (improve public transportation on the whole, higher tax on larger cars, more efficient roadway designs and better light timings, etc) ...

    999) create a system where the public has the power to revoke certain laws (as long as they have some % support like 30-59% from congress) in a public voting system

    etc....too many to do in one's life time. But it's pretty obvious that such a push for even any of these will probably never come from any candidates, at least from the way the current election system is setup (one main party vs another with a small 3rd party with little ability to gain momentum). Many of these are of varying importance yet many have not yet been addressed.

  260. I am running in 2020 by Codeman125 · · Score: 1

    I have actually thought this out for some time. I plan on running in 2020 when I will finally be old enough to run. I am currently 25. One of my first orders of business would be restoring many of the civil liberties lost in the past decade. Until recently, it was abnormal to be required to show ID to travel between the states. Why should my government care if I am flying to New Mexico from Arizona. My main focus would be Social Security reform. I work hard for my money, and I believe I have started a good plan for retirement. Why should I have to give up my hard earned income to pay the way of someone who doesn't want to work.

    I would put a greater reliance on the family. A lot of the problems we are seeing these days come from a breakdown of traditional family values. It used to be if someone needed financial assistance of any sort, they went to their family first. When growing up, my parents never relied on someone else to tell them I could or could not play violent video games. They used their own common sense.

    A wise man once said there needs to be more religion in government. Religion, NOT CHURCH! There is a big difference. I don't car what religion you affiliate yourself with, be it Christian, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or others. Every faith teaches something about morality and how to behave. It is when one blindly follows that problems arise. Look at these people that burn books because their preacher told them it was about witchcraft. Nevermind trying to reason it out for ones self.

    I would reform education. I actually am quite pleased with the public education system, at least where I live. I also work for the district where my children would go to school. I do realize there are problems with the system. Privatizing it won't help. What we need to do is work within the system to bring about needed changes. Better science needs to be taught in schools. One thing I think my district does well is we try to teach kids how to think, and how to apply the concepts learned in real life.

    One of my final big reforms would be to the current Income Tax laws. The tax code is way too confusing. My current favorite idea is a national retail sales tax.

    I would be happy to hear from people about their political views and would be willing to share more of mine. Contact me at Cody.S.WrightSPAM@gmailSPAM.com Just take out the spam.

    Cody Wright

  261. The Masterplan by FishandChips · · Score: 1

    Recognizing the limits of government and doing as little as possible is one of the secrets of good government.

    I would appoint a cabinet of the best talents I could find, regardless of their political affiliation (if any), and give them maximum leeway to get on with it.

    I would require all employers to offer at least 28-days paid holiday a year and I would fire anyone in government who did not take it and also fire anyone who made a habit of working seven-day weeks.

    I would ban breakfest meetings which are profoundly uncivilized.

    I would go to bed at 11 pm and leave every official engagement by 10 pm regardless of what it was.

    I would be nasty to Vladimir Putin, lock up financiers from time to time to remind them of who's boss, require anyone worth more than $2 million to give at least 10 per cent of their income to charity and make public the details, offer Texas to the Iranians in exchange for peace in the Gulf (the sooner the USA is rid of Texas the better we'll all be), and generally see my role as keeping everyone's spirits up.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  262. My platform by SirGarlon · · Score: 1
    1. Phased withdrawal from Iraq
    2. Prosecute CIA torturers for war crimes
    3. Declare war against Taliban. Continue fighting in Afghanistan but follow Geneva Convention.
    4. Form bipartisan advisory committee to plan a fix for Social Security shortfalls (any single-party solution will fail, in my opinion)
    5. Veto any bill that was amended less than 2 business days before it was passed, to minimize the tendency of shady cabals to rewrite legislation at the last minute, in the dead of night
    6. Tax political campaign contributions, sending the money into a fair elections fund
    7. Fund a major initiative to explore nuclear fusion, cellulose-based ethanol, and other carbon-neutral energy sources
    8. Prosecute employers of illegal immigrants for tax evasion
    9. Launch a guest-worker program and let current illegal residents apply - from their home country and after paying a fine
    10. Hold companies liable for damages when their databases get hacked
    11. Resign after first term and found a third major political party

    That about covers my wish list.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  263. Politicians are spooging ideas by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    And bad ones at that. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/220455.php This govenor wants to make school free if you get a 3.0 GPA.

  264. "The Sunset Ammendment" by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Introduce a Constitutional Ammendment:

    All laws enacted by Congress shall include a provision for sunset, not to exceed XX years, after which that law will no longer be in effect.

    The thought behind this being that any law that is important enough to be on the books, including things as diverse as murder, taxation, and funding Congress, the Executive, and Judiciary are all important enough to be periodically re-passed. Obsolete/unimportant laws will wither away, as they should, rather than get pulled up decades later and used in ways never imagined by their originators. The number XX would need to be strictly specified. 10 years comes to mind, but there might be better values that help insulate the law from election cycles. (Maybe XX - 20 would even be a good number, coincidentally.)

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  265. What Would Paul Do? by STrinity · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Abolish NASA and the Department of Education, create a neo-isolationist foreign policy, repeal the 14th Amendment ... yeah, those are great ideas.

    And before any Paulites mod me down for saying he wants to repeal the 14th Amendment, listen to his own words. Yes, the man opposes the passage in the Amendment which made blacks citizens of the United States. But he's not a cryptoracist. Oh no.

    --
    Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  266. If I were president... by FellowConspirator · · Score: 1

    I would solemnly affirm that I would faithfully execute the office of President of the United State, and would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. You just don't see enough of that happening these days -- it'd be nice to get back to the basics.

    I would veto most legislation -- anything with an ear-mark, anything that puts the wants of the few above the needs of the many.

    I'd propose budgets that are within the means of the country, withdrawing troops to home until Congress declares war. I would bolster the US state department and bump the US diplomatic corps to cabinet position in its own right, and develop a robust and well-resourced diplomatics service that is the best in the world.

    I would remind everyone that the US government should never be regarded as a moral compass. Legislation sought solely on moral grounds or to assuage the wounded sensibilities of the electorate would be vetoed outright. Frankly, it's might right and your to be offensive. I think eating sea urchin is disgusting, but I'm not prepared to proffer a bill to ban sushi.

    Would make government as transparent as possible, make it easier to let go of government personnel, and task the GAO to identify inefficiencies in the way government is executed and address them. I would commission a small group to survey other world governments and pilfer the best ideas the world has to offer as far as providing the highest quality of life with the highest degree of personal freedom.

    I would ask the congress to propose a law that allows laws to pass only on a 2/3 majority and be repealed by a 1/3 minority so as to limit the how much questionable legislation gets on the books, and to speed problematic legislation off.

    I would stop prosecuting wars on whatever. Drugs, terrorism, Britney Spears... doesn't matter. It's ridiculous to think that we can totally stamp out everything that's unseemly or harmful to us. Rather, we'd look at cost-benefit analyses and determine the best possible compromise (I'd even ask the GAO to lend their expertise in this area). If it means releasing petty drug offenders to recoup the costs of incarceration, I'd be in favor. Perhaps we could develop a system of paying back society for petty crime instead of sitting in a dorm watching TV -- you know, something constructive.

    I'd develop an energy policy that aims to reduce oil consumption to as close to nothing as is physically possible. This would include investment in alternative energy, contemporary nuclear technologies (like pebble-beds), etc. I might request from congress money or authority to purchase patents whose existence is used to stymie the necessary research and development.

    I would provide a review of the "intellectual property" system and ask for modifications to current law to uncomplicate the system and optimize it's public benefit. I'd probably offer terms on copyrights stated in "generations" as indicated in the US census. The original US term was 1/2 to 1 generation and that might be good enough. I would also ask that media with "access controls" be exempted from copyright since the content cannot be accessed after it's term has expired, nor can the access control assure the rights of the user to sufficient degree to satisfy the minimal requirements of the copyright contract. I'd also ask the concept of "works for hire" to be abolished, or make it impossible to transfer right away from a creator.

    I would seek to offer a certain minimal level of public healthcare -- perhaps based on the German or Norwegian systems. I would end subsidies for goods and commodities. I would lobby congress to pass one of two laws: one that explicitly states that corporations are not individuals and sets up guidelines for their treatment as separate unequal entities, or a law that permits similar penalties (e.g., a product kills someone, there would be a murder trial and the product or maker could receive a corporate "death penalty").

    I would try to get considerably

  267. paint house... by Sunkist · · Score: 1

    ...red.

    --
    No, Vern. They just let him in.
  268. Start a War on ... by IanDanforth · · Score: 1

    Disease.

    Cancer, AIDS, MS, Alzheimer's etc, these are America's true enemy. More lives are lost or devastated by these diseases a month than by terrorism or drugs in the last decade.

    These are our common enemy. I don't care if you're republican or democrat, Christian or Muslim, rich or poor, disease is out to get you, your parents, your children, all of us.

    It's shameful how much money we spend ensuring we can kill and how little we spend to protect life. It's shameful how we have failed to fight that which kills more Americans than any other force. It's shameful how we bicker over petty differences while a true enemy destroys us from within.

    Unlike the wars of greed and ignorance we've been fighting, A War on Disease has no casualties and every battle fought makes us stronger. A War on Disease is a campaign for all Americans and for the world, and against none. A War on Disease, is one we can win.

  269. My top priorities by teknognome · · Score: 1

    In no particular order

    1. Increase funding for the space program 5-fold (or so). A more useful space station and a permanent moon base would be the first goals, along with robotic missions to the outer solar system.
    2. Open immigration, and open travel to Canada and Mexico. Allow anyone to become a citizen after a few years in the country, with a test of US history and basic priniciples (Constitution & Ammendments, Declaration of Independence, etc)
    3. Legalize most drugs, within reason (ie all except ones with low lethal doses with little other effects). Then they could be regulated for safety and taxed.
    4. Institute a national health insurance system
    5. End international deployments of the National Guard. Only use them within the US, preferably within their own state.
    6. Recall most troops from Iraq.
    7. Repeal Patriot Act, REAL ID, end warrantless wiretapping, and disband the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (secret courts? blech)
    8. Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Require states to recognize all other states marriages and civil unions, and have the federal government recognize them.

    And while the federal government couldn't do it feasibly, they could provide incentives to state school systems / universities that do:
    9. Require people to have basic knowledge of a language other than English. It's a big world out there, and a lot of it doesn't speak English.

  270. Duh! I would shake things up by asscore · · Score: 0

    NICE:
    Pardon ALL non-violent prisoners in the entire country.
    Make all private and for-profit prisons illegal.
    Eliminate the personhood rights of corporations, and make their officers criminally liable for the actions of the corporation.
    Require that all US corporations maintain a certain level of all operations within the United States, using American labor.
    Tax the rich at a proportion equal to or exceeding that of the middle class.
    Make minimum wage an actual living wage, able to completely sustain the needs of one individual.
    Legalize and tax all illegal drugs.
    Legalize and tax all gambling.
    Return police powers to their pre 1900 state (a complaint must be made before any investigative action by police)
    Cancel any law enacted for "our safety"
    NAUGHTY:
    Call "President-sies" for life
    Institute a national "Death Lottery" to bring the American population back down to below 100 million.
    Round up and execute all anti global-warming propagandists, lobbyist, pro-drug warriors, any police officer that has ever used a taser under questionable circumstances, CEO's, and other vile scum.

    /I could go on all day - but these are the big ones I can think of.

  271. What Would I Do? by JonWan · · Score: 1

    Annex the sudetenland.

  272. What would I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I'm assuming we're not asking what I could do, because the President cannot create legislation. They can request it, and they can use political maneuvering to get Congress to craft it for them, but unless Congress approves it, the President can't do much but yea or nay.

    Anyhow, assuming that I can somehow coerce Congress into complying, I would:

    * Make education more competitive. You can get too competitive, sure, but the better schools should be for those who are willing to work harder, not just those who have more cash. People aren't actually too stupid, if you know anything about the science of education, you'll see that hard work gets people a lot farther than any innate talent. The really "smart" people have things they devote a lot of time to learning. Our kids learn FAR less than others; this is a huge disadvantage. Global competition means that you can't just do things half-ass and hope that trade barriers will let you keep your job any more. We're terrible at science and math. You can't even teach set theory because it's "new" math and people treat it like it's some new age nonsense (even though it's more in tune with REAL math that idiots never learn). They freak out because there's more than one way to do multiplication than the One True Way they were taught in 10th grade and they make insipid videos about it on YouTube. God help us if they ever start saying that set theory is "just a theory" ... Someone should ask them if they know that exponentiation is "just repeated multiplication", show them how to do it, then ask how they use that One True Way to calculate something important to mathematics, like e^(i * pi). How do you multiply 2.71828459045 with itself 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058 * sqrt(-1) times, to get -1, anyhow? (Hint: You don't actually know what ANY of that really means if you don't know math above the American high school level, because you're barking up the wrong tree from the start if you try to calculate something like e^(i*pi) without knowing the math behind it.)

    * Eliminate almost all imaginary property laws. I would allow a few, weak rights, but they would not be expansive and would not extend even one iota past certain clearly listed rights. If it's not listed, you do NOT have any right to it, period. They would not entitle you to a share of anyone else's profits, even if they somehow had a picture of your trademarked Ford in them somewhere, nor would they entitle you to restrict people via EULAs, nor would they entitle you to spy on people. DRM = no legal protection at all, too. When it gets cracked, it's your own fault for trying to rip off your customers with a scheme that was never going to work in the first place (and non-customers do not get the DRM-encumbered version to begin with).

    * Loser pays in court. Punitive damages go to the state. The Courts should NOT be some kind of get-rich-quick scheme, that's insane. If Europe can get it to work, why can't we?

    * More court technology. There are too many ridiculous legal fees for providing things that can be provided with much lower costs. Also, ALL laws and precedents need to be made available electronically by the government. You shouldn't have to pay a dime to be able to read the laws, given that we're expected to be able to follow them.

    * Personal privacy laws. Don't like it? Don't collect personal data. That said, I would be careful to allow medical study of anonymous records. There are, in fact, means to remove any means of patient identification without distorting the value of the records for study. This also means that our credit reporting agencies need an overhaul; they have too much de facto control over people's lives to be able to screw people over with little or no legal recourse.

    * Repeal and clean-up unnecessary laws. Admittedly, most of those are probably state-level, but there's no reason to have 80 new laws just because, for example, the internet is involved. Fraud is fraud is fraud,

  273. If I was President... by konquererz · · Score: 0

    I would write and sign an executive order prohibiting me from doing almost anything at all! Then sit back for four years, and enjoy my pension for the rest of my life! Ah, its nice to be king!

  274. As a more-or-less European looking across the pond by Qbertino · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'd say the biggest problems in the US are
    1.) Basic Medical Care
    2.) Basic Social Wellfare (we're talking 'basic' folks - not German style "luxury" wellfare) - the US lack the most basic social wellfare.
    3.) Education
    4.) Gun law
    5.) Media
    6.) Election system.
    7.) current ultra-kazillion deficit (Thanks to GWB)

    Number 1+2 are obvious, number 3 is a large biggie and number 4 is the prime cause of unnatural death in the US. The US Education system is bad and needs attention. The gun problem I'd try to tackle by making the NRA a gouverment authority and requireing every US citizen who wants to have a gun to be member of the NRA and take a thourough official gun training (+ license) and psychological evaluation.
    I'd fund german style 100% gouverment funded independant media (media is independant by constitutional law in Germany - a very good thing that the US desperately needs). It's one of the few things German authorities actually do right. I'd also change the US election system to be more true to reality.
    Fixing dept along the way would be hard to do but nice to have - you'd have to reduce military spending or something.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  275. Increase gas tax by Pork-Chopper · · Score: 1

    I would substantially increase energy taxes substantially and use the money to fund a nationalized health care system. The increase in energy taxes would hopefully incent people to move in from the suberbs and live in neighborhoods and walk from place to place. This would likely allow the U.S. to spend substantially less on health care while having quality that was more up to other western countries.

  276. It's Good to be the King! by woolley+bully · · Score: 1

    1. No Income Tax. Only 15% sales tax. The sales tax is then divvied up in a seemingly logical fashion like 7% Federal Government, 3% state , 2% city, 1% unemployment, 1% social security, 1% welfare.
    2. Social Security gets payed out by total amount taken in last month divided by total number of people that applied for this month
    3. No subsidies.
    4. Pull out military from all foreign turf.
    5. Welfare only paid to people who qualify and perform menial labor -- even if it means picking up trash along road or stuffing envelopes (is that even a job any more?).
    6. Counter to #3, subsidies only to companies that reduce pollution, reduce dependency on foreign oil, provide free breast enlargement.
    7. gay marriage legal.
    8. allowed to have as many marriages as you want as long as wives (or husbands) are fully aware. Alimony eliminated. For every wife you have you must put $50,000 in bank account in her name. You get a divorce, she gets the money.
    9. free, super high speed internet access
    10. cuddly bunnies for everyone
    11. a person's maximum age is strictly legislated: fifty-one years, to the day. When people reach this Lastday they report to a Sleepshop in which they are willingly executed. A person's age is revealed by their palm flower -- a crystal embedded in the palm of their right hand that changes color every seven years, then turns black on Lastday.

  277. Many minds by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    Be a very productive, yet invisible president. 1. Make a law that my likeness and personal information couldn't be posted publicly... leading up to... 2. Use a popular web forum or three to try out good ideas and get more good ideas. What are they calling the free work people on the net provide for companies for no pay? 3. Hire lots of smart literate people to read the forums and help me keep on top of things. 4. Go with the best ideas. Post them on the net. ;) On a more serious and specific note, off the top of my head I'd look at things in this order and try to make things better and more fair. A lot of these overlap: 1. Environmental stuff/Energy (affects everything else) 2. Peace (less war, more alliances, less greed) 3. Our people (well being, rights, etc. People are more important than corporations) 4. Money (economy, we can't function right now without it. Corporations can't be neglected, but they have to come after the other important things) 5. Other people (well being of people everywhere) 6. Small level environment stuff (if we missed it at number 1, we need to look more closely. Quit killing off forests and species for greed, etc.) --getting a little more creative as we go further down my list-- 7. Find a way to reduce the human population of the world gradually, without infringing on people's rights. Tricky. Any ideas? 8. I'm all about freedom of religion and all that, but we've got to find a way to get people to stop hating people of other religions. Seriously. It'd also be nice to get religions to quit encouraging infinite reproduction. Yeah, I guess we need to get the religious leaders to be a little more reasonable given the circumstances of what we see happening around us. Maybe get them all playing tag football together or something. Or at least Team Fortress 2! 9. Deal with criminal stuff better. Especially the corporate and government bad guys who get off WAAAYYY too lightly as it is. As for the bad street criminals with lots of violent crimes... I say give them the axe sooner if we are sure they are in the wrong. Maybe speed up court dates and whatnot. 10. That leads me to something else. Reduce the bullshit factor of people getting into certain professions. For instance, why limit the number of lawyers, doctors, etc. artificially... simply to keep their skills in high demand and give them higher pay. I say let people go to college for 2 years then have more open doors to getting there. Maybe even have some other level of "doctor" that can skip college entirely and go straight into the medical learning pursuits. Not sure how this would work, but it'd be interesting. Personally, I still would have switched majors a million times and stayed in school forever. 11. On another medical note, see about letting people go (pass away) when it's their time instead of pumping them full of drugs and halfway lying to them about their survival rates. I think it's wonderful to extend people's lives if they can function pretty well... but when you see older people you love who are hanging on by a thin thread and ravaged by a disease and nearly poisoned by medication... you realize we just aren't all meant to live to 100. 12. Another specific... less BS censorship. Especially on the internet and with games. But give parents more control over their own household censorship. Speaking of which, give parents more control over ADVERTISING censorship at home. I'm much more worried about my kids getting influenced by stupid commercials that warp you perceptions than most of the shows. TV ads need to have warnings of how much harm they might do to you. Personally I am affected very little by commercials, but I don't typically get affected by peer pressure anway... I digress. OK, I just need a lucky 13 to round it off. 13. Reduce the punishment on mp3 and movie downloaders. The fines just don't fit the "crime". It's just silly.

  278. Declare Blackwater to be a terrorist group by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    Sic the military on Blackwater. They're a greater threat to America, the world and to freedom than all other extremist and terrorist groups combined. Declare Blackwater to be a terrorist group. Hunt them down and destroy them wherever they are. Enlist the aid of Muslim extremist groups (you know, enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that jazz). Add a line to the constitution ensuring the government will never use paid extra-judicial mercenaries ever again.

  279. Re: If this is the absolute least I can say regard by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    If this is the least I can say regarding the wrongness of a lot of that:
    What electoral college?

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  280. What I would do by Bootarn · · Score: 1

    First I'd come up with a series of reforms allowing for better public health care. Then I'd ban software patents and force all states to accept an open standard for office documents, preferably ODF. Removal of troops from Iraq and other areas would also rank high on my list.

    But I'm only Swedish, so what would I know?

  281. Fix the plane. by normanthenudist · · Score: 1

    Rename Air Force One to Air Force Zero for obvious reasons.

  282. veto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compare everything that comes to my desk for signature, with Article 1 Section 8, and the 10th Amendment. Ignore ridiculous case law (hey, that's the courts' problem, not mine) that interprets "interstate commerce" so amazingly broadly, in a manner that is utterly contrary to any layman's interpretation. Grab my big VETO stamp, ink it up nice 'n' red, and then... *WHAM!* Stamp it multiple times. And spit on it too.

  283. You really want to know? by StaticEngine · · Score: 1

    I suspect some of these views would be wildly unpopular, but here is what I would attempt to achieve while President, keeping in mind what the actual job of the President is.
    1) Attempt to increase funding an manpower for Law Enforcement in an effort to decrease serious crime. This isn't turning the Nation into a police state, it's an attempt to ensure that every crime gets solved. The rationale here is that tougher sentences are not a crime deterrant because they simply build up the Prison Industry, but "rational criminals" still commit crimes because they think they can get away with them. Let's lower the possibility of getting away with serious crimes, which I believe will be a better deterrant.
    2) Attempt to decriminalize smaller crimes, or crimes that can be argued as victimless. Prostitution and Marijuana posession come to mind. I'm sure there are many others.
    3) Attempt to convince Legislators to draft bills, which I would sign, that require High School Students to take classes on Personal Finance, and that require students at three different grade levels (one Elementary level, one Jr. High level, one High School level) to take firearms safety courses, culminating at the highest level with an opt-in to actual hands on usage of firearms in a safe, supervised environment. On the first bill, I figure we need better education about finance and wealth management, and on the second, I figure if the Founding Fathers felt strongly enough to put firearm ownership in the Bill of Rights, we should teach our citizens how to be safe around them in an effort to reduce accidental deaths and increase responsibility.
    4) Increase funding for science and technology research, and sign up the Nation for some Big Bets on the technological/scientific front. Maybe it's a better nuclear reactor, or a series of space or deep sea missions. Maybe it's the first "home AI". Something that we can get behind as a Nation and be proud of that will make us flex our intellectual muscle.
    5) Pressure Congress to pass laws which tax organized religious groups which use the altar as a political bully pulpit, then send the AG after churches that meddle in politics. I believe in the seperation of Church and State, and this sword should cut both ways.
    6) Pressure Congress to draft a budget that gets us back to a Progressive Taxation scheme, where the wealthy pay more and the poor pay less. Couple this with some programs that train the poor with valuable skills and useful money management techniques. The intention here is to create a constant transition stream of poor to wealthy (or at least Middle Class) that pays back the debt it owes to the State for the level of prosperity that they have achieved within the framework of our great Nation and our system of laws.
    7) Seriously reevaluate our international financial aid, and come up with some good reasons why certain nations get Billions from the US. What are we getting in return? Build more hospitals and schools overseas and less bombs. Build up internaltional goodwill while undermining the appeal of radical anti-american forces in whatever way possible (and legal under International Law). I want less people to say "The Americans bombed our building!" and more people to say "The Americans built our great Hospital!"
    8) Build safe, standardized Nuclear Power Plants all over the country. Reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce the National Carbon Footprint.
    9) Close Camp X-Ray. Process the prisoners there through some kind of transparent court system. Stop waterboarding. Comply with the Geneva Convention.
    10) Pressure the entertainment business to offer more educational, world-view entertainment via popular media such as television. I want to see less narrow-view "'Merica, Fuck Yeah" crap on TV and more shows that encourage curiousity, acceptance of diversity, a culture of long term planning and dilligent improvment over a "get rich quick mentality", and intellectual honesty. Open people's minds to the notion that how we do things in one little town is

  284. Re-establish world leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It would take more than one presidential term to re-establish the USA as an important world leader, but here are some things to start the ball rolling:

    • Eliminate the nuclear arsenal of the US.
      Do this unilaterally, without treaties. Just do it.
      (The US will never use a nuclear bomb again, anyway. It is a bluff that nobody believes.)
    • Demand that all other nations do the same. Leverage your new position as a moral leader to make non-hypocritical demands.
      Remind the world that you still have enough conventional weapons and manpower to wipe out almost any nation on the planet.
    • Recall all troops from Korea.
      Again, this is just an expensive hollow bluff. Save the money and remind N.K. that we have enough remote-controlled fire power in the Sea of Japan to wipe them out if there are any border problems (which there won't be).
    • Abandon any military facilities in Cuba, and hand the land back over to Cuba.
    • Trim down the NSA, CIA, etc., to a single intelligence agency operating outside the USA, with very limited leeway.
      Be very vocal about restrictions against torture, murder, and other crimes. Present the cleanest possible image of all US operatives.
    • Eliminate the DHS, TSA, and all other "security" agencies spawned in the wake of 9/11.
    • Put a great deal of stress on the difference between "police work" and "war effort." Fund police work at an appropriate level, eliminate all domestic war efforts, reduce foreign war efforts. Terrorism, when it violates law, should receive a police response, just like any other violation of law.
    • Vastly simplify border restrictions. Trade and traffic should be restricted only when it poses a health and safety threat.
      (Hint: sweat shops pose a health and safety danger, as does immigration of some criminals.)
    • Eliminate farm subsidies.
    • Begin some serious public works infrastructure projects. Recalling tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers from Korea, Germany, etc. will create an economic crisis. Employ some of those people to build out fiber infrastructure, solar farms, etc.
    • Remove the rhetoric of terrorism from the US culture.
      Quit talking about how to prepare for it, how to respond to it, how to prevent it.
      Start talking and acting in a way that drives fear out with hope.
    • Focus on education. Encourage education innovation and help lots of people try lots of different things. Celebrate educational successes.
    • Even with expanded public works projects, the budget should tip considerably into the black. Use the surplus to a) pay down debt, b) lower taxes.
    • Provide an alternative simplified tax code.
      You can continue to pay accountants to minimize your tax profile under the old tax code if you think that is better for you.
      Or, you could just pay n% simplified tax (where n is small enough to lure people). Minimal deductions, no loopholes, no depreciation, very few distinctions, etc.
      The n in n% is, of course, adjustable by Congress each year.
      We will eventually phase out the old tax code. Starting in 2015, you will pay 5% of your simplified tax, and 95% of your choice of tax codes. Each year after 2015 that balance will shift another 5% until we have transitioned 75% to the simplified tax. The next year (2030) the old tax code will be dumped and we will move 100% to the simplified tax code.
    • Mandate military education.
      If you are in the military you will complete a minimum of 10 college credits per year towards a chosen college degree.
      Anyone who does not maintain a 2.0 average will not receive advancement or pay raises.
      The credit requirement drops to 4 credits per year for those with Masters degrees, and the credits do not have to apply to any further college degrees.
      The US government will pay for up to 12 credits per year.
      In any year where deployment has interfered with college studies, soldiers will receive a four month assignment to a study camp that will provide facilities and at least 10 working hours each day to complete coursework.
      This mandate can be suspended during periods of conscription.
  285. Simple by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    1. Abolish Soft Money in politics
    2. Repeal Corporate Personhood
    3. Repeal Patriot Act
    4. Strip telecom immunity in relation to illegal surveillance
    5. Drastically reduce military presence overseas
    6. Stand behind Palestinians, not Isreali - the modern day aggressors
    7. Rectify Kyoto
    8. Enforce Net Neutrality
    9. Pass the Public Domain Enhancement Act
    10. Limit Pharmaceuticl Patents to 10 years and Software Patent to 5 years
    11. Rollback Copyright extensions to life of author + 25 years.
    12. Expand Stem Cell research fundings
    13. Abolish Abstinence-only sex education
    14. Remove Intelligent Design from Science classes and put it back to Religion or Philosophy classes
    15. Make Political fiddling of scientific findings illegal
    16. Tax reform such that Warren Buffet actually will pay more than his secretary.

    You get my ideas, just do things that Make Sense (R).

  286. Press the Button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would go straight to the Oval Office and press the big red button, just to see what it actually does!

  287. Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
    I'm not disputing the racism in the letters. I am disputing that Ron wrote them and that he agrees with those sentiments. Just as he said in his statement above.

    Not exactly very big on accountability your chap, is he?

    We are expected to beleive that a newsletter went out for over a decade that Ron Paul had absolutely no part in producing, no authority over and did not even read? His denial does not say that at all. He does not deny funding the newsletter or that he read it. Nor does he say who actually did write the articles.

    The biggest failures of the Bush administration have been the abject lack of accountability. Bush blames everyone but himself for the mess in Iraq. It is hard to think of a single member of the administration who was sacked for their incompetence rather than the political inconveniences that their incompetence caused.

    So now we are to accept the idea that you can publish a political newsletter to promote your thoughts on politics without taking responsibility for the contents? Sorry that simply does not wash. The best spin that can be put on this situation is that your man is a buffoon. That is hardly a recomendation for someone seeking the US Presidency.

    Who did he choose to write the newsletter for him? Would they be offered positions in a Ron Paul administration? How can we trust Ron Paul's judgement on other personnel decisions? Failing to make subordinates accountable is as bad as failure to accept personal accountabilty.

    It is a somewhat strange set of criteria that is set up by the media as well. Edwards is disqualified for paying too much for a haircut, Hillary because she is a robot. But Ron Paul can have racist drivel put out under his name for over a decade and somehow it does not rate a mention.

    The really, really sad thing here is that Ron Paul is in some ways the least crazy of the GOP contenders. He has the least whacked out tax plan (yes really!) and he is the only one to recognize that Iraq is a failure. But when you read the anti-Zionist screeds in his newsletter you pretty soon realize that they go way beyond mere criticism of Israel, they are unambiguously anti-semitic. That does force one to stop and ask if his Iraq policy might be driven by anti-semitism.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    1. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing the racism in the letters. I am disputing that Ron wrote them and that he agrees with those sentiments. Just as he said in his statement above.


      Not exactly very big on accountability your chap, is he?

      You think that accountability means "taking the blame for the words of others even though those words have nothing to do with one's view"? Crack open a dictionary, pronto.

      We are expected to beleive that a newsletter went out for over a decade that Ron Paul had absolutely no part in producing, no authority over and did not even read? His denial does not say that at all. He does not deny funding the newsletter or that he read it. Nor does he say who actually did write the articles. You believe that the racism in those few snippets was representative of the whole newsletter for a period of ten years?
      What facts do you base this on?

      The biggest failures of the Bush administration have been the abject lack of accountability. Bush blames everyone but himself for the mess in Iraq. It is hard to think of a single member of the administration who was sacked for their incompetence rather than the political inconveniences that their incompetence caused.


      So now we are to accept the idea that you can publish a political newsletter to promote your thoughts on politics without taking responsibility for the contents? Sorry that simply does not wash.

      "George Bush did something bad, therefore Ron Paul..." APApapapa! Stop right there.
      You're making Ron Paul the straw man of the Bush administration. Don't. Just don't.

      It is a somewhat strange set of criteria that is set up by the media as well. Edwards is disqualified for paying too much for a haircut, Hillary because she is a robot. But Ron Paul can have racist drivel put out under his name for over a decade and somehow it does not rate a mention. Ok, WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS IF NOT IN THE MEDIA?
      And again with the "for over a decade".
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You think that accountability means "taking the blame for the words of others even though those words have nothing to do with one's view"? Crack open a dictionary, pronto.

      No, he thinks that accountability means taking responsibility for what's been published under your name. This scandal involves what was published in papers published under Ron Paul's name for the best part of a decade, and not just one or two occasional lapses (with editors being reprimanded, etc), but over, and over, and over, again. To believe Ron Paul's own explanation, he didn't read his own newsletter for ten years.

      There are very few legitimate explanations for what could have happened. Ron Paul may be a racist. He may be a man who's willing to pander to racists. Or he may be utterly and completely incompetent, willing to lend his name to a publication edited directly by people whose views he supposedly finds repugnant, and not even bothered enough to check on its progress for that time period.

      What's the fourth explanation? 'cos I'm not seeing it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1

      The new republic article only quoted a couple of the newsletters. Yet you would have me believe that there were continual racist comments throughout the whole ten years? Despite providing no evidence? I don't think so. That, coupled with the fact that he has publicly repudiated those views many times, coupled with his many statements during his 10 terms of public service, would make it seem that you are simply blowing smoke. Do you have an axe to grind or something?

      And it would take a complete idiot to think think that pandering to racists would allow one to get ahead politically. Somehow I just don't see an intelligent person making that leap.

    4. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The new republic article only quoted a couple of the newsletters

      Really? Because I see considerably more than two newsletters quoted. This is just the part of the article that quotes Ron Paul's newsletters on race issues:

      Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

      This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

      Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

      Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One news

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      No, he thinks that accountability means taking responsibility for what's been published under your name. This scandal involves what was published in papers published under Ron Paul's name for the best part of a decade, and not just one or two occasional lapses (with editors being reprimanded, etc), but over, and over, and over, again. To believe Ron Paul's own explanation, he didn't read his own newsletter for ten years.

      The Paulists don't like accountability and they do not like debate. Which is kind of odd given that they were upset when Faux News would not put Paul on. They have been modding down the heads of all threads critical of Paul.

      Somewhat childish really, got Karma to burn baby, this is when to use it.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    6. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Alright. So we have five issues quoted with racist content -

      1. December 1989
      2. November 1990
      3. June 1991
      4. June 1992
      5. October 1992

      Do we know that Paul read one of those specific ones during those 10 years? No. As for the ones about MLK (that weren't given references) - several people have said Paul praised King on many occasions. Including the F'in NAACP president. So those quotes certainly are not his.

      I think there is still plausible deniability as to his authorship and approval.

    7. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      We appear to have considerably more than five issues quoted, though for some we're unsure of the exact issue. February 1990 and March 1994 are explicitly mentioned. At least two 1990 newsletters attacked King, and at least one praised Duke, and the article is written in such a way that implies these are probably not the two explicitly cited 1990 newsletters.

      Do we know that Ron Paul read the seven-to-ten issues that were published from December 1989 to October 1992? Well, if he managed to miss about a fifth (being generous and assuming the three 1990 mentions are all in the February and November issues, and concentrating on race only, and assuming that TNR published every single questionable comment made) of the published content of his own newsletter during that period, it seems hard to believe he was reading any of it.

      Whether Paul himself has praised King is not necessarily relevant. The guy consented to have attacks on King to be published under his name. At no time does he appear to have made a serious effort to prevent the "editors" from continuing to publish this kind of content. There is no plausible deniability here, he's either an utter and complete idiot who ignored for many years what was being published under his name after putting in charge people who clearly had extremist views, or he was comfortable with those views being expressed - for whatever reason, be it pandering or actual racism.

      I'm not really hearing a fourth explanation here, just a denial that enough racist content was published for him to notice. Well, sorry, but how the hell could he have missed that much?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Do we know that Paul read one of those specific ones during those 10 years? No. As for the ones about MLK (that weren't given references) - several people have said Paul praised King on many occasions. Including the F'in NAACP president. So those quotes certainly are not his.

      My blog is read by six people. If I wrote something like that on my blog I would have people wanting to talk to me immediately.

      Are we to believe that not only did Ron Paul not read his own newsletter, nobody ever talked to him about the articles either?

      Lets try Occam's razor here. What is the simplest explanation: Racist, Panderer or Idiot? I think it is Racist and Panderer.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    9. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1

      There has been enough accountability and civilized debate to satisfy a reasonable approach to the situation. Now you really are to the point of flaming and trolling. Personally I wouldn't have modded you down. But I also think that the main problems have been addressed adequately. At least for people who are open minded enough to accept the repudiation of the racist views.

    10. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Like I said, we don't know if more issues besides these five had racist content. And we don't know if he read these specific five issues over a period of 10 years. I don't think he's racist, and pandering to racists simply doesn't make sense for an intelligent person who has aspirations to be president.

    11. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Yes, we heard you say five the first time, even though TNR explicitly quotes more than five as was just pointed out. Just as it was more than two, back when you were claiming it was just two.

      To me, no, it simply isn't believable to me that he missed at least six, and almost certainly more, random issues between December 1989 and October 1992, unless he was actively ignoring what was written under his name.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1

      The number of ones actually referenced are five, and I didn't go back and count them... so what? I think it's believable that he could have missed five random issues of a monthly newsletter over a period of a few years. Was it wise? Certainly not... and he is definitely paying the price for that now. But he has come out many times and repudiated the racism in those ones that were quoted. People, especially politicians, make mistakes. Just ask Bill Clinton. There is a point where people should move on, and I think that point has been reached with this issue. At this point, the only people who keep bringing it up are liberal democratic socialists who disagree with Paul's political philosophy.

    13. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Given you listed five dates, and I pointed out these didn't include February 1990 and March 1994, both of which are included either explicitly (the latter) or indirectly ("two months later" after December 1989), I fail to see why you're still plugging the "five" number. This is the second time I've had to correct your use of "five", and come after the constant assertions there were just "two", something I find hard to believe anyone would have come away from the article even after a brief skim-read thinking.

      You and I will have to differ as to whether it's possible to miss at least six issues over the space of three years of a magazine that you're supposedly actively reading - or should be, if you're not a complete idiot. And you might find it easier to understand why if you address why, rather than just assume that people cannot sincerely have problems with the fact that Ron Paul appears to have consented to having racism and homophobia published under his name.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Five or six - whatever... it's still a fairly small number. The exact number doesn't matter.

      I don't have a problem with people who are concerned about racism - that is perfectly legitimate. And I agree it was stupid for him to not read all of them. But yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether he consents to the views. He publicly repudiated them many times, and that's good enough for me... for now.

    15. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      We appear to be able to rule out "idiot" (well, except in the sense that if you promote racism and want to be taken seriously, then you're none-to-bright. What I mean is that of the three options, the "Someone else edited it and I never bothered reading my own newsletter" explanation is ruled out.)

      Ron Paul has, in the past, said his words were being taken out of context. So either he was lying then, or he's lying now.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    16. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the minimum number now stands at seven for the period Dec 1999 to Oct 2002, as one newsletter cited turns out to be December 1990 (see "describes" link.)

      Given that we're talking about a grand total of twenty five issues for the period above, at minimum seven of them being notably racist is hard for a regular reader to believably miss.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    17. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're right - it does seem a little strange. Maybe those quotes are out of context... I dunno. I haven't read the actual newsletters themselves.

      It's at least comforting to see him denounce that material. Because of his stance on war and incredibly libertarian voting record, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until more light can be shed. It doesn't look like he'll be elected president anyway, but I really want his small government views to gain more attention in public discourse.

    18. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      This is all crap, the only point to the crap is to give Ron Paul supporters something that helps them believe that he is not the racist the articles show him to be.

      It is clear that Ron Paul is lying, at the very least he must have known about the articles and done nothing. But I will bet that if someone does a text analysis of the pieces they will turn out to match other known Ron Paul pieces. When someone is peddling an obvious lie nothing else they say can be taken seriously.

      This all reminds me of those poor deluded idiots who used to stand on street corners preaching the gospel according to Karl Marx. They always had an explanation for the terrorist acts of Trotsky and the rest, or the tankies appologising for Hungary or Stalin or pretending it never ever happened

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    19. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      At least for people who are open minded enough to accept the repudiation of the racist views.

      Ron Paul has only been saying that he did not write the articles. Not that he did not agree with them or was offended by them then or now.

      So its kind of a non-repudiation repudiation

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    20. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1
      Did you read his statement that I posted earlier? Or are you willfully ignoring it?

      When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name. The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.


    21. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      There are very few legitimate explanations for what could have happened. Ron Paul may be a racist. He may be a man who's willing to pander to racists. Or he may be utterly and completely incompetent, willing to lend his name to a publication edited directly by people whose views he supposedly finds repugnant, and not even bothered enough to check on its progress for that time period.


      What's the fourth explanation? 'cos I'm not seeing it.

      Freedom of speech.
      Why does Taco allow the troll posts to stay on /.? He could wipe away all the gay/blac/etc hating posts, but he doesn't. Does that mean that Taco believes all the words he allows to be uttered on his site?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    22. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Taco is very careful to clearly delineate what's been written by him and what is written by others. Slashdot also has several layers of editing - a front page article whose text is blatantly racist would, I suspect, be disavowed very quickly and probably result in editors being fired.

      If Rob Malda left it to others to edit the site, only published editor approved content, and put the site under his name (ie "Rob Malda's Newsletter") with no signs whatsoever that anyone other than Rob or people associated with Rob are involved, then yeah, the situation would be comparable.

      It's all academic anyway. Reason has uncovered pretty damning evidence that Ron Paul actually did write many of the things that concern is being expressed about that he's now disclaiming.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    23. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If Rob Malda left it to others to edit the site, only published editor approved content, and put the site under his name (ie "Rob Malda's Newsletter") with no signs whatsoever that anyone other than Rob or people associated with Rob are involved, then yeah, the situation would be comparable. Copyright: Ron Paul and associates.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    24. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Reason has uncovered pretty damning evidence that Ron Paul actually did write many of the things that concern is being expressed about that he's now disclaiming. A paper attributing everything in the newsletter as being written by Ron Paul is not damning evidence of Ron Paul.

      I've been following the links, the case against Paul is nothing more than guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    25. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Did you read his statement that I posted earlier? Or are you willfully ignoring it?

      I was ignoring it as self-serving lies. Take a look at the Reason magazine article. It gives chapter and verse on the racist tactics being used here. Paul defended the articles at the time they were written. That amounts to an endorsement of and claim of responsibility for the articles. Whether he wrote them or not, he endorsed them.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    26. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by darjen · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you say that RP only claimed he didn't write them. Not that he did not agree with them.

      Ron Paul's statement shows that is wrong... he not only claims he didn't write them, but denounced such small minded views and says the views aren't (and never were) his. I wouldn't call that an endorsement. Whether you believe that is a different story - but if you keep saying he didn't denounce the views you are clearly lying.

    27. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul can have racist drivel put out under his name for over a decade and somehow it does not rate a mention.

      Can you point out where the info that racist remarks were published for over a decade? Last I read those statements were published for about 2 years.

      Falcon
    28. Re:Racist, opportunist or buffoon. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      To believe Ron Paul's own explanation, he didn't read his own newsletter for ten years.

      Backup your assertion these statements were published for over a decade. I dare you.

      Falcon
  288. semi socialist policies mixed with conservatisim by xshader · · Score: 1

    Yup you heard me. Some things need to be socialized, some things need to be out of the hands of the federal government.

    1. Pull our troops out of the 170 some countries we occupy and reduce the "defense" budget by 10 fold (allow democracy to speak for itself)
    2. Go back on the gold standard (no more devaluation of the dollar)
    3. Decriminalize drug usage (unconstitutional)
    4. Socialized health care (give everyone the same complete coverage)
    5. Socialized education up till college
    6. Close down all coal power plants, start constructing nuclear plants for a hydrogen based economy
    7. Make the left lane a "free-for-all" lane, slow traffic keep right (damn you grannies driving in the left lane!!!)

    That's all I can think of for now...

  289. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were president.

  290. Education by TheLivingPie · · Score: 1

    I would hedge my bets on education. It's the only way to keep American productivity up in the 21st Century.

  291. Something that makes sense by MarkLewis · · Score: 1

    1. Admit to the nation that although there were some who thought at the time we should have gone into Iraq (including me), that events have proven them wrong, and that it was a mistake to put US forces in harm's way.

    2. Issue a 90-day deadline to the Iraqi government to resolve the major political issues (distribution of oil revenue, states rights vs. federal, etc). If 90 days pass without resolution, then publish the deadline to the public at large and set a 6 month timeline for the majority of US combat forces to be out of the country. If they do resolve the political issues and seem to be on a path to taking over peacekeeping duties, then negotiate a reasonable timeline for Iraqi takeover of all day-to-day peacekeeping operations, not to exceed 12 months, and have the majority of US forces out within 18 months (although I might not publish the 18 months figure to the public to avoid emboldening anti-US factions).

    3. Veto any federal spending increases or expansion of authority, even for popular causes such as K-12 education.

    4. For all programs which the federal government shouldn't be involved in, such as K-12 education and welfare, work to gradually reduce federal spending to zero. Reduce taxes by the amount saved but make it clear that taxpayers should expect to see roughly analogous increases in state taxes to make up the difference.

    5. Have the Justice department publish reasonable standards of what the US considers to be torture, and make it clear that personal criminal charges will be pressed against any officer of the United States government found to violate the standard. At the same time, grant immunity to all US officers who may have violated the torture standards under the previous administration (don't want to criminally prosecute folks for just doing their jobs). Preferably, after the initial document published by the Justice Department, Congress would take over control of the torture standards by legislation.

    6. Make it clear to my cabinet and supporting staff that I will not tolerate violations of US law. Nobody will ever get special treatment or a presidential pardon for violating the law just because they work for me. And if I do, for example, have an aide who lies under oath to avoid implicating the vice president in a scandal and receives a sentence that I think is too harsh, the most I would do would be to work to get the sentencing guidelines reduced for that offense for all convicts, not just the errant aide.

    7. Do everything in my power to reverse precedents set in recent presidential terms and diminish the power of the president. Take a page from George Washington and emphasize that I am merely a steward of the democracy.

    8. Work to cut military troop levels by 35%, and military spending by 25%, so we have fewer but better trained and equipped soldiers. Apply the savings to a social security lockbox.

    9. Never lie to the American public.

    10. Never cover up or stonewall to protect officials who play partisan politics within the US government (such as when federal attourneys are dismissed), regardless of whether they're in my party or not.

    I'm sure there's a lot more too, but those 10 seem like a good start.

  292. What would I do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interns. Lots of them.

  293. Anti-Corruption Legislation by dudevanwinkle · · Score: 1

    After bitch-slapping every dem and repub holding a public office for years of backtracking on freedoms and fuxoring our International Image and reputation, I would make sure to put into place Anti-Corruption legislation, including cameras that follow every senator, congressman, president and vice president around that would be broadcast on the inet so that any joe blow could "watch the watchers".

    If they wanted the cameras removed for "national security" (no Dick Cheney's energy policy minutes are NOT national security) a review would be required before granting this.

    Who'd-a-thunk that Dick Nixon could have come up with such a great idea ;-)

    -JP

  294. Just one thing by Tom · · Score: 1

    I'd do just one thing, and trust that everything else will right itself as a result of that:

    Any lobbying of the executive or congress or any senator that is false or misleading (intentionally or not) or fails to include at the very least a mentioning and pointers to the opposite opinion will be punishable by death.

    About 200 executions later, the US would be a lot better off.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  295. I believe this nation should commit itself... by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

    "I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal of complete energy independence and sustainability.

    Toward that end, it is my goal to make the United States Armed Forces energy independent by 2030, so that we never again have to go to war for oil.

    I ask the Congress to fund $50 billion per year toward this goal, to begin building solar power installations covering the Nevada Test Site, to build hydrogen generation and associated oil production facilities, and for research into alternative fuels and methods of improving efficiency."

    Actually, I'd like to be a speechwriter for Senator/President Obama, give him that speech, and let him handle the rest.

    --
    (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  296. Energy Manhattan Project by cc_pirate · · Score: 1

    I'd start by initiating a renewable energy Manhattan Project. Dedicate more than the amount of the GDP (say 1.5X) that is currently going to that idiotic, undeclared war in Iraq and use it to make us self sufficient when it comes to energy.

    With that amount of money being spent, there would undoubtedly be a lot of serendipitous benefits and we would be likely be energy self sufficient within a decade. Heck, I'd use JFK's speech about Apollo project to kick off mine!

    Then I'd implement a "fair tax" of some sort so that we don't need $50 computer programs to figure out our taxes.

    I could go on, but you've probably heard it before... You know, all the stuff that everyone agrees should be done, but for some reason the current batch of status quo slimebuckets can't do (mostly because they are paid off to keep it this way)...

    --

    "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

  297. If I were president... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    First thing I'd do... ...is put Al Gore in charge. Barack Obama gets to be VP, just to make the Right-Wing's heads explode at the thought of a Black Man so close to the top. Plus, it guarantees that no nutty Michael Savage listener would assassinate President Gore.

    Bush and Cheney get to clear brush.. ..in Guantanamo.

    It all reminds me of the joke about George Bush dying and going to Hell. He gets there and the devil says "Since you were President and all, you get to choose your punishment".

    Satan takes Bush to the first room, where Ronald Reagan is being whipped mercilessly by lesser demons. Then he shows Bush the second room, where Nixon is forced to stand up to his chin in human waste. In the last room, he sees Bill Clinton throwing a athletic shot into Monica Lewinski.

    "OK," Bush says, "that doesn't look too bad, I'll take the third room."

    Satan says "Alright Monica, you can go now."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  298. If elected by peter+sisk · · Score: 1

    I'd quit.

  299. El Presidente by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

    1) Power through a law (using the public as support) to have all Federal political officials post their tax returns and bank statements online. Transparency is the first step towards ending corruption. 2) Pull our troops out of military situations that are none of our damn business - military action should be reserved for humantarian efforts, helping those who can't be helped (i.e. genocide), and, of course, war. 3) Have the National Guard come home first. They are the National Guard - why are we sending the home defense out to fight in another country? 4) Post National Guard troops on both borders as a temporary measure. Construct strong, highly-advanced border walls on both borders and make sure they are more than adequately staffed. 5) Create an American Foreign Legion, and run it pretty much like the French Foreign Legion - after passing an intelligence and background check, you can join up and serve in this new branch of the U.S. Military. 4 years of service earns you citizenship. It would largely be used for humantarian and engineering efforts (much like the National Guard), but would be very combat capable. 6) Legalize marijuana as it's completely harmless, and reclassify all drugs in the scheduling system into their scientifically proper places. Posession should just be a misdemeanor - intent to deal would be something more along the lines of operating without a business license and not so much a felony. 7) Eliminate the IRS and use the FairTax system. That's about it... Oh, and if it hasn't been brought up, the National Budget Simulator is hella fun. I usually get the deficit down to a couple hundred billion. http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM306

  300. I know, I know... by Efialtis · · Score: 1

    1. Abolish Congress within the first year. Ok, maybe a misnomer, but hear me out. Our Congress was not designed to be a Professional Political System. So we would tell every one in Congress that they have their 1 year notice. We set elections for the following year and we break down their terms of service for the first set of Congress Critters. After the first set, then it is as follows, ALL OFFICES at the FEDERAL Level will be limited to 2 terms. Current people in office that have already served more than 2 terms are forbidden from holding office again.
    Salary/Compensations for Congressmen will be fair and even across the board. They will receive no more than the AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN, which is currently something like $44,000 a year.
    Transportation, Healthcare, and Housing will be provided while they are "working" in Washington, only. There are no Retirement Benefits from Public Service. There are no other Special Benefits in Public Service. You don't "retire" from public service, you "finish your term of service"...at which time you go back to your old job, or go out and find a new one.
    These rules apply to the House and to the Senate. They also apply to the President, with a slight modification...since the President is NOT "on duty" only when Congress is in Session, the President will receive a little more Compensation, and housing, transportation, and healthcare will be provided throughout the "term of service".
    2. Modify the Electoral System. Currently, the Electors are Bound or Unbound. But there is little if any difference between them. The new system will FORCE the Electors to VOTE with the Percentage of their states. So if Utah votes 3/5ths Republican and 2/5ths Democrat, then 3 of the 5 Electors would vote Republican and 2 Electors would vote Democrat. There would be a group put in place to figure the percentages with reasonable accuracy to allow the "fractions of percentages" to be counted and applied in the correct way.
    This system would be completely open and publicly auditable.
    The use of Electronic Voting and Internet Voting would be explored, and open to public scrutiny.
    3. The IRS would be abolished. A "Fair Tax" system would take its place, using a "consumption" tax. Tariffs would be reinstated on ALL imported goods.
    4. Federal Laws would be evaluated and those that are not in harmony with the Constitution would be repealed.
    5. The War on Terror would be canceled. The American Troops that are currently deployed to countries that are not either a) paying the USA for the services of the US Military or b) bound to the USA in some kind of treaty.
    6. The War on Drugs would be canceled. It isn't doing any good. Drugs should be evaluated for addictiveness and potential damage and classified. Those that are classed in one area would be available commercially OTC. Others might take a doctor's prescription.
    7. Decriminalization of Victimless Crimes. Purging of the Prisons of non-violent criminals. Using technology and science to track low-level criminals. Institution of rehabilitation programs to prevent further offending for certain types of criminals.
    8. Instituting National programs and awards for academician excellence. Forget the No Child Left Behind. Funnel money into education and set a standard for TEACHERS not STUDENTS and put up awards available for students who do the work and achieve the education. SOmething like; for students who finish a Master's degree, (in something other than "under water marble stacking") we could "forgive" their student loans, or a large percentage of those loans. That way, regardeless of race, economic status, or sex, ANYONE can receive a "forgiveness" of their student loans for achieving a "minimum standard of education"...
    9. Institute a national Driver's License. We would no longer need individual state driver's licenses.
    10. Institute a national Firearm's Permit. Since State Constitutions must meet the minimum standard as set by the Federal Constitution, the Right to Keep and Bear a Firearm MUST be Recognized by

    --
    --E--
  301. What I would DO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Pull all of our military out of those countries that have a problem with us
    2. Position all of our nuclear carrying ships off the coasts of these countries
    3. Deliver an ultimatum "EITHER STOP YOUR CRAP OR YOU'RE GOING TO MEET ALLAH/MOHAMMED PERSONALLY."
    4. Non-compliance, press the button and watch the mushroom clouds blossom.
    5. Position our military troops on our Northern and Southern borders with orders to shoot any interlopers as spies/terrorists.
    6. Have INS perform city wide sweeps for illegal aliens. If any are found, first time deportation, second time execution as terrorist/spy.
    7. Make US representatives become members of Social Security and pay their own damn hospital bills.
    8. Do away with Political Immunity and Kick members of the UN out that do not follow US laws and customs.
    9. Go through all cities and execute any hostile gang members and/or drug dealers/kingpins.

  302. first thing.. by anonycow · · Score: 1

    Among many things... I would get myself a green-card... :D End the war, bring troops back home Reduce trade deficit Improve the economy Spend more on 'projects' and make sure the effort is fruitful Work on a new middle-east policy with Iran at focus work on African crises and so on...

  303. Fire everyone and replace te Federal Reserve by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 1

    fire everyone in the government system that have never worked a hard day in there lives. and replace them with people that have. abolish corp. sponsorship. only political funding from individuals with real incomes not corporate shares. remove the Federal reserve system currency. but then I'd likely get assassinated before they let me uncorrupt everything.

  304. Goof Off and Eat Candy by DorkRawk · · Score: 1

    As your president, I solemnly swear to goof off and eat candy!

  305. Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a shitty job, I think I'd quit.

    Oh, you mean what would I like to push. I'd probably push education reform and environmental reform.
    I've never liked our current education system. It currently suffers from some major issues:
    1. It's filled with mediocre workers afraid of seeing good workers as competition. This is the same problem most large companies have. But it's harder to fix: They can't go out of business or be taken over.
    2. They're focused on academics, and they're failing. Probably 80% of what you get in high school curriculum is retaught in the first year of college curriculum selectively based on your major. It's wasteful, and students know it. They know geometry isn't important to writers (shocking I know). And in a day in age where lemon laws are necessary because we know too much it's time our schools grow up and figure it out: You can't be a jack of all trades or an expert in all fields.

    So first I'd fire everyone. Of course, that's impossible because teacher lobbies are too powerful and they know too many voters. But that's what has to happen.
    And it's not that they'll all be unemployed. The new organization should rehire a large percentage within a year. For all I care we can pay unemployment for a year to the rest, who cares it's cheaper than 20 child classes (a retarded idea, talk about regressive).

    The new organization has to be able to fail and collapse. I'm not sure how to make it do that on a small scale with significant federal control over curriculum.

    However, about education reform. Here's what we don't teach and how it's fucked us up:
    1. Health: Obesity is epidemic. People smoke. Obviously we've failed to teach our children how to live healthfully; or better stated our parents failed to teach us.

    2. Civics: Seriously, Hillary. Fox News. We're retarded. We vote for a woman because she's a woman, allbeit a tough one. We watch Fox because they tell us what we want to hear. All the while ignoring better sources on vastly superior mediums: Newspapers, radio, INTERNET (and I don't mean slashdot)...

    Those are the two more important subjects in a public school system. The second you actually have a right to know: How can we be held to laws we don't understand? The first is simply a requirement for a successful society.

    As for environmental problems we have a more complex issue. We're shipping out labor and upping shipping. We're buying ridiculous vehicles that weight 1.5 tons to 2 tons and go from respectably aerodynamic with a sensible engine to a big joke about ones lack of manhood.
    We commute in these beasts, one car per person. We drive cross country in them (although most of us have higher occupancy then, go us; but we make up for the efficiency with semi trucks).
    We're obsessed with cheap products: Which are bad for the environment. Here's the simple equation: I can buy twice as much stuff at half the cost, and to half the cost I make it for nothing in Sri-cuba and ship it meaning wasted energy to make up for high lifestyle workers.

    LIVE WITH LESS SHIT. YOU DON'T USE MOST OF IT ANYWAY!

    This doesn't even bring up decreased product lifespans from decreased overall quality.

    Those are just the easy parts. Nuclear energy, "clean" coal, and ethanol are much more difficult questions. Not to mention hydrogen, everyones favorite unrealistic futuristic fuel source that might accompany cold fusion in its time of arrival.

  306. I'd to run it into the ground. Intentionally by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    Seriously. We had a good thing going until 1913, when we got the income tax and the federal reserve. We sold the country out to the bankers. Anything that keeps them in control -- including pulling back from the brink, only keeps them in control. We have to run it into the ground so that people will say never again will we let our incomes be taxed. Never again will we allow money to not be backed by metal. Never again will we let it get _this_ bad. Only then will we value what we once had: true freedom.

    We have to kill the country to save it.

    My apologies to Duke Leto II.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  307. First off, a massive pardonfest by vudufixit · · Score: 1

    President Bush (current one) shamefully underutilizes his pardon powers... most of those he has pardoned already served sentence for minor crimes. And the number of people he sets free is pitifully small. I don't want Mike Huckabee to become our President, but I admire his use of his power to pardon. There are thousands of people moldering in jail because they committed some victimless crime or ran afoul of a ridiculous law, often because the law itself isn't even that clear. I agree with our President hat the level of "WMD" possessed by other countries should be reduced or eliminated, but we have to take the first step. I would halt the renewed development of new nuclear weapons, then dramatically scale down our nuclear weapon stockpiles... perhaps to a small group of "defense only" warheads - perhaps 25-50 spread among ICBM, subs and long-range bomber delivery. I would also look at shutting down every federal agency that either does nothing substantive, or performs functions that are duplicated at the city, state and/or county level.

  308. resp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well i dont know how about taking care of US first and then help every other nation which doesn't even ask for our help in the first place.
    Also democracy is not the solution to every problem

  309. Democracy only works w/ informed electorate by BillPhillips · · Score: 1

    Even the responses of substance seem to be marvelously misinformed about what powers the president actually holds.

    Presidents do not make laws.

    The president can not abolish your taxes.

    The president can not raise expenditures on X.

    The president can not reduce expenditures on Y.

    The president can not make your pet illegal substance legal.

    The president can not reform campaign financing.

    At best, the President can advocate such things to happen. This is often done. It is rarely successful.

    You slashdotters are smart folks. The fact that you don't know this is inexcusable. I understand if you find politics to be distasteful. However, the only hope for democracy is an informed electorate.

  310. Easy enough... by Grimfaire · · Score: 1

    Bring our troops home. Slash the defense budget to 10% of it's current level. Fire all private defense forces (i.e. Blackwater) Take the new funds and 1) Cut taxes 2) Do a complete overhaul of the Medical system and return something akin to Canada's single payer system but with more funding. 3) Split the remainder into funding Education which is decided on at the state level (no more federally mandated no child left behind bull) and NASA because until we get a second place to live, we're all in danger. Change corporate laws so that corporations are no longer treated as a person but as a corporation. Thus the people running the companies are now responsible for the actions of that company. Remove most of the constraints on research and on business. But add one big restraint... Executive pay (including all perks) cannot exceed 20 times the pay rate of the average worker in the company. ala Gravel and Paul - disband the Federal Reserve. Skip the whole Ethanol debacle and go right to mandated solar/wind/methanol power generation. No more hemming and hawing... give em 3 - 5 years to switch.

  311. Prosecute george w bush for war crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuf said

  312. Oh, good grief! by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

    You guys think the Presidency is a dictatorship. Sure, Bush makes it seem that way.

    The only thing the President can dictate is how government works. He can't make new laws... anything else he does is just a suggestion.

    The President could, for instance, issue an executive order that federal marijuana laws not be enforced. He could issue an executive order that all government employees will use economy class, and first class travel is off-limits to all government employees. These wouldn't create laws, they just tell government employees how to do business.

    Anyway, the President can't do much of anything. Sure, he can invade other countries as long as no war is declared, he doesn't have the power to declare. Everything you all would hope can be done cannot be done without the cooperation of the Senate and House, and will find challenges that bring those things in front of the Supreme Court.

    The election is just to put a monkey in the oval office, nothing more.

  313. The New Republic by JDAustin · · Score: 5, Informative

    How come the strongest attack is coming from The New Republic, a neo-conservative online magazine?

    Point of order here. The New Republic is NOT a neo-con site. It is in fact quite liberal. You a probably confusing it with the Free Republic or even the National Review.

    1. Re:The New Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neocons are liberals. They want big spending, want an empire, want to expand the power of the fed, want to tell everyone what to do.

    2. Re:The New Republic by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Neocons are liberals. They want big spending, want an empire, want to expand the power of the fed, want to tell everyone what to do. By that definition Hitler was a liberal.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:The New Republic by mako1138 · · Score: 1
    4. Re:The New Republic by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      Libral and Conservative are subjective terms that vary in meaning from nation to nation. Hitler was actually more moderate. Many of his programs like the RAD were very Liberal. At the same time, his German imperialistic policies in desiring a reunification of the Reich were at the time very Conservative.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    5. Re:The New Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just described authoritarians, not liberals. The sort of people you're talking about would never let individuals decide for themselves whether to have an abortion or not. They would never carry out humanitarian missions in places like Darfur or Kosovo. They would oppose all attempts to use America's wealth to benefit Americans through social services, opting instead to send the money to the military or into the pockets of the most wealthy and powerful.

      I take your confusion as an indicator that you voted for Bush and are only recently realizing what a terrible idea that was. Refusing to take responsibility for what you helped create, you choose to blame his disastrous policies on those who had the foresight to oppose him from the start.

    6. Re:The New Republic by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Point of order here. The New Republic is NOT a neo-con site. It is in fact quite liberal.

      In point of fact, The New Republic IS NOT Liberal. TNR wants big government whereas Liberalism is about liberty and small government.

      Falcon
  314. Re:He is not a racist by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    The newsletter was published for the best part of a decade and the issues raised in, for example, the TNR article span many, many, issues over that period. What we're expected to believe from Ron Paul's denial is that he allowed people to edit a newsletter under his name whose opinions he didn't vet; that he never read his newsletter over that time; and that he wasn't even aware there was a serious issue with it until it became a campaign issue in the last decade.

    It's simply not believable. I don't know if Ron Paul's a racist or if he's an opportunist, but either way it's close to impossible to believe that there's the degree of disconnect between Ron Paul and what was published under his name that he claims. I cannot believe he didn't know, and that he wasn't in a position to stop it from going on. And as such, I cannot believe he isn't an exploiter of racism.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  315. If I Were The President... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. I'd have a real /. handle and not post A.C.

    2. Decriminalize marijuana and promote hemp production for paper, clothing and alternative fuel production. Smokable weed would be taxed just like cigarettes and its usage enforced just like alcohol: You Smoke & Drive, You're in Jail. etc.

    3. Have my ambassadors and foreign service staff formally apologize to their respective hosts for the past 8 years of diplomatic assitude.

    4. Kill all agricultural subsidies. Most American farms are now run by Archer-Daniels-Midland and the like, so the corporate welfare ends now. Import tariffs would be scrutinized based on market conditions. If foreign governments attempt to dump product on the American market to gain market share or in the attempt to kill domestic competition, they will be fined accordingly, but no long-term tariffs will exist. It's an open market in my administration.

    5. Immediate repeal of the Patriot Act and the dismantling of the Division of Homeland Security. FBI will handle domestic law enforcement and CIA/NSA will handle overseas operations.

    6. Organized religion will be removed from the government. Any religious organization espousing a political party or attempting to influence lawmaking will be subject to federal income tax as a political lobbying corporation.

    7. Political contributions will be made into a national pool. This pool will be divided among all potential candidates for the House, Senate or Presidency who garner petition support from no less than 10% of their respective constituents. Direct contributions to any single candidate will be illegal and subject to fine and criminal punishment.

    8. Presidential primaries will begin no earlier than 10 months before the national election. States will be entered into a revolving pool to determine the dates of their primaries so that no state will have undue power over any other similar to the Rotating Regional Primary System.

    9. I would list more, but it's quitting time.

  316. Re:I could fix the country with only a few changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    14. Require every dumbass that thinks he has the answers to political problems spell 'lose' correctly.

  317. Dutch president... by macdo · · Score: 1

    I will keep it simple: There is one thing that needs doing: Direct some serious funding to the space program. Not only for the benefit of the USA, but for the sake of all mankind. The future is out there, not here on this small blue marble, and now is the time to take control of our destiny! We will not get a second chance, and time is running out fast!

  318. My Ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Have funds be appropriated by a percentage of income. For example, the defense department gets 20% of the federal income (instead of a fixed amount of $400 Billion). There would have to be exceptions to this, but that can be worked out.
    2. Before any military action require the president to submit a report to congress detailing specific goals, a means of measuring progress, and contingencies if sufficient progress isn't being met.
    3. Establish a public community effort for developing and modifying social programs (immigration reform, health insurance over hall, tax reform, etc) in order to get more public involvement in laws that are passed.
    4. Work towards a democracy. I would like to keep the senate, but replace the house of representatives with a direct vote of the people.

  319. MOD parent up. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "Removing the current solutions provided by the government without offering any alternative seems ridiculous from my point of view."

    Indeed! I am not from the US and I certainly would not want to be it's president, but fans of RP's extremist views should take a look around the rest of the planet. The nations that have already accomplished those six points are all bannana republics who's citizens do not have ANY income to tax. IIRC the last leader of a major nation to actually implement such a simple-minded revolution was Mao.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  320. Subject omitted by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

    1. Get the US thrown out of Iraq. When the new Iraqi government is perceived as being unfriendly toward the US, it should reduce the desire by some to destroy it.
    2. Start a blog. Respond to comments.
    3. Eliminate or make opt-in (by state) most/all federal social programs and subsidies, giving enough time/support to the states that want to start their own. (And, by extension, reduce taxes by the amount that these programs cost.)
    4. Halt the practice of legislating-by-withholding-funding. Taxes should not be levied against the states with the intent of sending those funds back to the states they were taken from, with unrelated strings attached. No more "must be 21 to buy alcohol, or your state gets less highway funds."
    5. Encourage (force?) alternative voting methods, such as ranked voting. (But then, how did I get voted into office in the first place?)
    6. Push for a constitutional amendment restricting the nature of the commerce clause to cover things that have a clear and compelling need to be dealt with at the national scale.
    7. Go data-driven. Establish an independent scientific advisory panel, perhaps elected from professional organizations, to report (to the public) on the rational basis for new legislation (likely expenses, likely benefits, with error bars, validity of assumptions, etc.)
    8. Apply a data-driven philosophy to existing legislation, such as "war on drugs", etc. Abolish as appropriate.

  321. free energy by adius · · Score: 1

    -If free energy exists, it would not remain secret. -Socialize Health care - works great for France and Canada. -Encourage scientific progress in all areas. -If #1 doesn't exist; encourage free/cheap energy research.

  322. Of course by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

    You could do things like standing on the balcony while yelling "I'm the president bitch!", and shoot people the bird.

  323. Kill everybody.... by trouser · · Score: 1

    ....start again. And free donuts for all.

    --
    Now wash your hands.
  324. Sunset all knee-jerck laws and agencies and... by An+dochasac · · Score: 1
    1. Create a default 5-year sunset clause on all laws, agencies, subsidies, taxes and czars created after 1787. That way Congress can muck with our lives "for the children" or "to protect us from terror" but the damage won't last for generations.
    2. Abolish the federal reserve and other quasi federalized organizations. (Sallie Mae caused the price of education to skyrocket, Fed/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac caused the price of housing to skyrocket, Hillarycare no doubt will cause the cost of medical care to breach infinity. When "Federalized", TSA employees magically became dumber than dirt)
    3. Tax gasoline enough to fully fund the 2+ Trillion dollar Iraq war.
    4. Enforce a quid-pro-pro trade/immigration policy. #$&* the banana tariffs, I'm sick and tired of countries like India, Mexico and China with a one way immigration and trade policy. If you want our jobs, open your borders to our labor. If you want to sell here, you'd better buy our exports and create jobs here...
    5. Remember that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Write that down somewhere, in ink.
    6. Disband an alphabet soup of letter agencies. TSA is first, then DHS. The FBI and NSA were obviously useless before 9/11 so zap them, FEMA works perfectly unless there is a disaster, fire them. NASA seems to only be interested in PR "science" 300 miles up, give them early retirement and thank them for the moon missions 25 years ago. SSA will obviously be bankrupt soon, put them out of their misery, FHA is an anachronism no more useful in these days of credit craziness, peak oil and global wage arbitrage than CCC and WPA. The FCC has done nothing to prevent monopolies on the airwaves and are nothing but a rubber stamp for big industry (e.g. the analog TV ban). Disband the US patent office, they clearly don't encourage invention. Privatize the U.S. postal service and Amtrack.
    7. Withdraw all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, let Europe sort that out.
    8. Hire Hollywood's best special effects director to create a $*8Tload of fake Osama Bin Ladins with hourly appearances demanding everything from brown beard dye to absinthe and holy wars in freedonia.
  325. A more direct democracy ... by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

    You know that little box that you can check on your tax form that lets you assign $3 of your taxes to fund the next presidential campaign? I'd change that a bit, and add a few more options. Here's what Congress wants to spend your money on, I'd say ... do you want to fund it? For example: Congress wants to spend $300 million ($1 of your taxes) on a bridge in Alaska. How much do you want to contribute? Give the "power of the purse" to the people, I say. Let them decide what's worth their money and what isn't. I would like to think that the American public is a bit harder to bribe than Congress, simply because there are so many more of us.

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  326. The REAL Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ron Paul, an Angry White Man.

    Meet the real Ron Paul, in his own words. It's not pretty.

  327. what i would do. by glendening · · Score: 1

    WARNING!!!

    you may disagree with this or be offended by my views and ideas expressed. in that case.. i don't care.. have a nice day.

    Illegal immigration - as far as i can tell there are already laws making coming into this country illegal, and on top of that laws against hiring those that are not legal .;;; so i think we should enforce those laws. if your found working in this country illegally, you will be deported on your own dime, any money you have will be used to send you off, if not enough money then any items you have will be auctioned to pay for the deportation. if you have money left over it will be taxed for what we found you owe and anything after that you may take with you to your home country.

    Hiring illegals - as its already illegal to do so i say we enforce those laws or enhance them. fines for a few hires, and jail time if you hire say 20 or more. harsher punishments if you KNEW they were illegal or paid them more then legal people working at your company.

    Illegal subclaus - IF an illegal immigrant has a job of higher standing, doctor, military personal, police officer, teacher, etc... they will be given the paperwork for becoming a legal citation and be fast tracked through the process.

    Border Security - walls don't work. we have proven that. other country's have proven that. so, i say we station military personal down there, couple for every so many miles. ROE are. unarmed civs that try to cross will be turned back, those of higher job skill, like stated above, will be given paperwork and assisted in applying for citizenship. anyone armed coming across the border will be warned twice in English and for the southern border Spanish to drop their weapons and leave, if they refuse they will be assumed hostile and shot. anyone crossing illegal drugs into the country will be arrested, if possible followed to their dropoff point, and have those they were bringing the drugs to arrested as well. and if found armed the ROE will apply.

    IRAQ - ah a fun one. seems everything is going well for now, as long as that doesn't change keep going with the plan, send more troops if it will get it over with faster. bring back the troops, let them get their rest and what not then off to Afghanistan to clean up the resurgence there. and don't let politicians run wars! let generals. as we have proven many times in even the last 100 years alone, politicians don't know how to run wars, Iraq and Vietnam both being good examples of such.

    IRAN - buncha nutz it seems. they want to attack Israel? go for it. as has been shown, even in a full blown war with the use of N.B.C. weapons Israel would loose around i think it was 600,000 people and Iran around 20 million. thus i really don't think the world has to worry, aside that it seems that with each day they are slowly pissing off their own people and like has happened before, we might be lucky enough to have them just revolt on their own time.

    Military Doctrine - i do not believe that any US soldier should have to die in another country for any reason. thus i look forward to spending money on cleaning up nuclear weapons to make them less radioactive so they may be used more readily on our enemy's.

    Alternate fuel/power sources - any fuel derived from food shall not be given any sort of subsidy. it has been shown that corn and sugar based ethanol production is pretty much a failure due to how inefficient it is. but other starch based methods have been found that are many times more productive. though ethanol produces more greenhouse gases then petroleum based fuel so it still seems counter productive as a main fuel source unless in emergency's or if oil were to run out. due to the profits gained, petroleum company's shall have their subsidies slowly lowered until they are removed completely and those subsidies placed into solar, nuclear, and other clean power and fuel sources. we shall also research further into sodium based nuclear reactors so they can get better use of the nuclear fuel they have and into th

    1. Re:what i would do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i do not believe that any US soldier should have to die in another country for any reason. thus i look forward to spending money on cleaning up nuclear weapons to make them less radioactive so they may be used more readily on our enemy's.
      Are you 12?
  328. What would I do? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    Interns. Lots and lots of nubile interns. That's who^Hat I'd do...

    --
    That is all.
  329. Eliminate or neuter? by Lethyos · · Score: 1

    When people are confronted with the idea of abolishing behemoths like the IRS and the Fed, even if it was possible, they see it as too monumental of a task to believe it's possible.

    The executive can set law enforcement priorities. It can also pardon or commute the sentences of convicts. Ron Paul can tell the nation: “stop paying your income tax and I will pardon you.” He could also do the same for organizations like Liberty Dollar. Not saying this is the intent (or maybe it is—some call this a revolution after all), but these are two tactics that could be used to enact large-scale change.

    --
    Why bother.
  330. My list by MortenMW · · Score: 0

    1. End the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but keep humanitarian services. 2. Cut defense budgets. 3. Start following international environment agreements (like the Kyoto-agreement). 4. Prioritize public transport (bus, underground, etc.). 5. Become a member of the international community (and stop being "the fat, stupid and wierd Americans). 6. Give money to the poor in third-world countries.

  331. Fix global warming - begin global government by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    If I were elected President I would:

    - Seriously address global warming by throwing on a carbon tax and using it
    to:
                -build super high speed commuter train and interurban train network.
                -start a "manhattan project" or "moon project" kind of endeavour to
                -do seriously major r&d on solar, geothermal, wave-power, ocean-current power,
                and nuclear fusion power solutions, placing the guys who started Tesla Motors
                in charge.

    - Begin global negotiations on bringing a directly elected United Nations Parliamentary
    Assembly, or Assemblage du Citoyen Mondial, into being with jurisdiction, initially,
    over human rights enforcement, a standing peacekeeping military force,
    and regulation of global-scale environmental issues.

    - Give every American the right to free health care.

    Aren't you glad I was born in Scotland so don't qualify?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  332. Same thing every President does. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Sign or veto bills, command the military, enforce the laws, present the State of the Union every year, negotiate with sovereign powers, and pardon turkeys and felons alike.

    It's what I wouldn't do that you'd be impressed with.

    I wouldn't change the world just to benefit me or my family.

    I wouldn't start a war just because my political allies want one and we have a malleable excuse at hand.

    I wouldn't sinecure traitors.

    I wouldn't dismantle the government, which does far more good than the loudmouth at the back of the auditorium seems to think.

    I wouldn't pass the buck.

    I wouldn't allow gigantic deficits to hide massive mismanagement, profit cronies, and enable ideological manipulation of local politics.

    I wouldn't get caught. Don't ask "at what?" That's part of not getting caught. It wouldn't be any of your business in the first place, or I'd let you in on it in the first place.

    Then I'd run for a second term, and maybe a third, if things go my way.

  333. Typical Slashdot response? by smorken · · Score: 1
    What would I do as a president?
    • legalize world of warcraft gold farming
    • legislate public egging of RIAA and MPAA
    • ban microsoft and give Steve Ballmer the chair
  334. If I were president.. by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    ..I'd tell people to pay more attention to the platforms (and voting records) of the people they're about to vote into Congress, since a president can't do much, without Congress going along with it. About all I'd be able to do, is veto stuff.

    Congress' power is heavily under-rated, and the media doesn't pay nearly enough attention to them. I've heard a lot about the presidential race lately, but where's the rest?!?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  335. Compulsory public masturbation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compulsory public masturbation!

  336. First thing i would do by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Is fly airforce one around myself :)

    After that, piss off everyone in congress by going back to the basics, the constitution and 10 amendments and then cutting taxes.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  337. A few things... by ari_j · · Score: 1
    • Refuse to sign any bill that was not read aloud in at least one chamber of Congress prior to being voted upon
    • Refuse to sign any treaty that a team of the nations best lawyers can't convince me does no harm to the law embodied in the Constitution
    • Work to get a constitutional amendment passed to make the Constitution the supreme law of the land, above treaties
    • Put an end to executive agreements with foreign powers; call them "unratified treaties" as they are and apologize to my foreign counterparts that I am morally compelled not to enter into agreements with them absent the advice and consent of the Senate
    • Work to undo the erosion of the powers of the states to govern themselves
    • Appoint judicially conservative judges, preferably those with even less political loyalty than I have
    • Focus economic efforts on having as small a federal budget as possible, balanced or otherwise, and on applying the minimum level of financial support to the states to make sure that they don't slack on the things that they have too little incentive to do on their own
    • Appoint a Cabinet consisting mostly of people who respect me but dislike me or at least disagree with me on something relevant to the positions I appoint them to
    • Throw out ineffective security measures; this may sound callous, but I'd rather lose a planeful of people once in a blue moon than flush money and constitutional rights down the toilet and lose the same number of planefuls of people; additionally, I would institute more effective security measures, such as discretionary searches instead of the random kind
    There are others. That's just the first 100 days. ;)
  338. The very first item must be... by beaststwo · · Score: 1
    ...to link the Federal Budgeting process to expected tax revenue. As strange as it may seem, the process by which the Federal Budget is created has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how much tax revenue is projected. The politicians make a budget of how much they want to spend, with the assumption that revenues will cover it. The result of decades of this madness is our huge national debt (approaching $10 trillion). Republicans want to cut taxes and both parties want to raise spending, but the spending is never covered, much less past borrowing.

    In addition to the budget nightmare this causes in Washington, because the states MUST balance their budgets, they look to the Feds to fund things they don't want to tax for. In the end, all the pols get a free ride, and the country goes broke.

    The reason I see this as the top priority is that we can't solve the critical problems of the nation (Social Security, Medicare, Defense, etc), until we have our fiscal house in order. Decades of borrowing are tying up more and more tax revenue just to pay the interest. The longer we overspend, the less ability the Government has to leverage it's financial muscle to solve problems, and the poorer we all become.

  339. it's easy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I am not a US resident or citizen, I live in Canada, so for me this is a very very theoretical excercise, still...

    I would setup a special operation to bring a nuclear bomb from Ukraine or Kazakhstan to the US and set it up somewhere and then the information about this would 'leak' to the 'free' press. I would then declare national emergency and would make sure that everyone in Congress votes to give me the special executive powers. That's where I would start all the fun.

  340. My First Hundred Days by cmholm · · Score: 1

    Push Congress to immediately...
    - repeal the Capital Gains & Estate Tax holidays.
    - adjust the AMT income level upward, and commensurate across the board cuts to all Federal departments (spread the pain evenly).

    Instruct the DoD to...
    - immediately submit plans to draw down Iraq theatre forces within a year to a) nothing, and b) 30k QRP garrison.
    - immediately submit plans to shift (X) forces pulled from Iraq to Afghanistan.

    Push Congress to consider...
    - Expand Medicare to cover entire population, in stages.
    - Tweak SS contributions/payments in yearly stages to keep 50 forecast in the black.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  341. If I am elected... by dr_dank · · Score: 1

    I promise a petrified Natalie Portman in every home and hot grits down all pants!

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  342. My list by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

    1. Show EVERYONE that Ron Paul only got around 4% of the vote, and still expect the Nintendo errr I mean Paul fanboys to say it was some sort of conspiracy that kept him out of the office.

    2. Implement a flat national tax. Along with this make tax day one week before elections. This tax would be what EVERYONE would pay and be a national sales tax. Only home purchases would be excluded.

    3. Set ALL government programs at a 1% across the board reduction and then have that program "grow" at a -1% inflation for the next 10 years. Explain to the American people what services will now be cut and why.

    4. Set mandates on the size of local and state governments. In now way should the size of government ever exceed 1% of the U.S.A working population. (Excludes military)

    5. Start the process of eliminating Social Security. If someone who is 20ish doesn't want in then they don't have to be. Those who are 50 and older and continue and be given a portion of what they would have gotten. Those 60 and older will be given what they current would get.

    6. End the war when Iraq and Afghanistan if they are able to defend themselves from a radical Islamic takeover. Defeat would not be an option and anything or anyone (Iran) that impedes the success will be treated as an enemy of the U.S.A.

    7. Kill the "free trade" agreement that was made during the Clinton years and continued through the Bush years.

    8. Impose a "tax" on any service done outside the U.S. and used by a U.S. company. It doesn't really make sense that a car imported in to the U.S.A. gets taxed but code or support done outside the U.S.A. gets nothing.

    9. Define when an unborn child is a citizen of the U.S.A.

    10. Build a wall and make it very difficult for Mexican people to become illegal citizens. Create very stiff laws on any company hiring these illegal people. However, greatly increase the number of people allowed to come here and work legally. Those that are here illegally can stay here but must pay a penalty (extra tax) for the remainder of their lives.

    11. Mandate open source software for all government systems.

    12. Reduce the barriers for Nuclear energy in the U.S.A.

    13. Look at completely replacing our education system. At this I would look at outside people, but it is obvious that we can do better.

    14. Make PBS earn it's money. No more government funding for it or NPR. They are both just sounding boards for the democratic party.

    15. Move cigarettes under the control of the FDA. Along with this either lower the drinking age down to 18 OR lower the minimum age for people in the military up to 21.

    --
    The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
  343. start up the ovens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd have all fags thrown into a furnace. fucking dick smoking queers. linux usage would hit zero and we'd be done with all this faggot dick sucking of linux.

  344. factually questionable by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Marijuana is also far safer than alcohol.
    I take exception to that. Alcohol causes plenty of problems, but lung cancer isn't one of them. Any time you inhale something that is burning incompletely, you inhale all kinds of things that don't belong in your lungs, and risk developing lung cancer as your living tissue tries to deal with the solid (and gaseous) waste that doesn't belong there.

    Calling it "far safer" than alcohol is like saying that bungee jumping is far safer than sky diving, or that a vegetarian diet is much more healthy than a mixed diet that includes meat. Each choice has its own risks.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:factually questionable by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Of course neither one of them is smart to use. We could debate the pros and cons all day. There are vaporizers that just heat the plant to the point where the THC is released and you don't inhale any particles. Unlike alcohol, no one has died from marijuana poisoning. Based on the simple fact that you can't smoke yourself to death but that you can drink yourself to death, I'd say that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana.

    2. Re:factually questionable by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Marijuana is also far safer than alcohol.
      I take exception to that. Alcohol causes plenty of problems, but lung cancer isn't one of them. Any time you inhale something that is burning incompletely, you inhale all kinds of things that don't belong in your lungs, and risk developing lung cancer as your living tissue tries to deal with the solid (and gaseous) waste that doesn't belong there.

      Calling it "far safer" than alcohol is like saying that bungee jumping is far safer than sky diving, or that a vegetarian diet is much more healthy than a mixed diet that includes meat. Each choice has its own risks. Just because many people smoke cannabis for THC intake doesn't mean that everyone does. Eating cannabis is safe, and the lethal dose is far more than a human is physically capable of consuming. Now, if a person chokes while trying to overdose, that's a different story. In any case, in the united states, we generally don't regulate anything as illegal to possess just because igniting it and inhaling the smoke is linked to cancer. That would be silly...right?
      --

      -Turkey

  345. Political Nutjob by mcrbids · · Score: 1
    Wow. What a mixed bag. Do you support the US Constitution?

    3. Abolish the two-party system

    Remember the FIRST AMMENDMENT to the Constitution? Here's a refresher:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Notice that bit about "assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"?


    4. Erase all censorship from all media...This includes: Internet, Television, print, video games, music, etc.


    This fits nicely with the aforementioned 1st ammendment.

    9. Require application for parental certificates (the program would be known as "If you can't feed em, don't breed em". It would be based on the financial situation of the parents, as well as their mental well being and relationship status...i.e. do they constantly fight, or are they constantly in love, etc.)

    Whoah! Whoah! WHOAH THERE! WHOAH! Here's the FOURTH ammendment:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The idea that you would license the right to parent - well, guess what?!? You'd be assassinated for this one! Too bad other people don't have your standards in parenting. But that doesn't give you the right to dictate THEIR standards...

    10. Legalize (and actively regulate) vigalante justice. (if everyone knows they can get their ass kicked by their gun toting neighbor, they are more likely to behave themselves)

    I see. So might makes right!?!? Sorry. You have a bat's chance in hell to get this one through. The United States is a nation of laws. Our laws are as effective as they are sensible and uniformly applied.

    Besides, looking at that beautiful document, the US Constitution, we have the Sixth ammendment:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. But "vigilante justice" denies the victim his right to a speedy and public trial by jury!

    You are a political whack-job. Your policies would return us to medieval culture, and reflect an astonishing lack of education. I am intensely thankful that we have a process that mostly prevents people like you from ever getting to office.

    I strongly encourage you to read a bit of history - those who suffer in ignorance of history are bound to repeat it. I don't want a repeat of 1500 AD!
    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Political Nutjob by Pojut · · Score: 1

      You are a political whack-job. Your policies would return us to medieval culture, and reflect an astonishing lack of education. I am intensely thankful that we have a process that mostly prevents people like you from ever getting to office.


      But I still get to vote ;-)
  346. What would I do? by MasterOfCeremonies · · Score: 1

    I'd do Ron Paul!

  347. Best President Ever by infinite+jester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would literally go down the list of every decision George Bush has made in office, and then do the opposite.

    --
    i thought, therefore i was...
    1. Re:Best President Ever by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      You would make a phone call to the team that lost the Super Bowl??

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  348. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would declare myself Supreme Dictator for the next 8 years (assumes I would be re-elected to a second term). Declaring Martial Law, I'd use my newly gained power to (among many other things):

    - eliminate Welfare and similar Social Services. Let the bums who refuse to work starve. On the flip side, if a citizen really wants to 'do something' for the poor, they are free to donate to a church or charity.

    - change the 'criminal justice system'. You commit murder? Death penalty. Period. Steal? You go to prison to work off a penalty of 3X what you stole. While in prison, your paycheck is first docked for rent on your cell, an administrative fee to pay utilities and the guards salaries, and only then for the food you get. Similarly, for injuries, you go to jail and work off 3X the medical bill. Of course, with severe penalties like this, the System must not make (too many) mistakes, so Cops/judges/lawyers/etc are all held accountable, too. A cop frames someone? They get 3X the penalty the person they framed got/would have gotten.

    - push alternative energy

    - Re-arrange and cut the defense budget. I'm sure we can drop bombs just as well with a 'b22' instead of a 'b23' or 'b24', so why are we wasting money building Billion-dollar planes? The money saved in cutting the construction parts of the budget can go to research. AI, remote control, etc. Then, the last few years of my term, I'd put the money back to construction.

    - Back on the moon with a permanant colony before I leave office.

    - Lower taxes on the middle class.

    - And, of course, I'd Stea... er, 'appropriate' a good supply of funds for retirement.

  349. science and discourse by beefubermensch · · Score: 1

    I think the most important thing would be to cultivate that indispensable part of leadership which exists outside of political formalism: discourse. I would use the position to speak to the American people. I'd reduce the dependence on speech writers, teleprompters, and statements incapable of offending anyone. I would declare war on sound bytes.

    Another focus would be to make policy more scientific. I would surround myself, and fill the administration with, PhDs. Run the White House like Larry & Sergey run a business.

    As far as issues go, my first would probably be to institute approval voting in as many elections as possible (and yes, this really is the best voting method). I would also fund pilot 'Logo' schools after Seymour Papert. And try to lift the drug prohibitions.

    -Carl
  350. How to right this country by Thunder_Princes · · Score: 0

    these four things would be the beginning of real, substantiative change. in no particular order... 1. sunset ALL laws. change the function of the legal system to putting good laws BACK on the books rather than trying to find arcane loopholes in legacy justice code. 2. term limits on ALL elected offices. 3. NO PAC money, EVER, none, no, gone. 4. NO exit polling during elections. mah two cents

  351. regarding corporations by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

    Regarding corporations, changes I'd make are:

    1. When a corporation goes into bankruptcy, the shareholders and managers cannot simply walk away. Share values of corporations should go negative in bankruptcy and funds owed to creditors should be recovered in proportion to ownership from shareholders. Managers who hold stock or options are on the hook for their share too. Recent bonuses and income are taken back. The current situtation encourages corporations to act irresponsibly since everyone involved can walk away and keep their bonuses and dividends.

    2. Criminal acts of any kind committed by or for the corporation should be prosecuted and every manager up the chain of command for the crime should be sent to prison. You can't just say my boss ordered it, or an underling was acting w/o authority. They all are responsible.

    3. Corporations are responsible for paying for depletion of resources. You cut down lumber from a forest, you have to pay to plant and feed a replacement tree. You pull coal or oil out of the ground, you pay down the mineral rights you have used. You contribute to global warming, you have to buy (real) carbon offsets or contribute to a remediation fund. No more using up natural resources w/o realistic funding of their replacement.

    4. All flow of capital in/out of mutual funds, hedge funds, 401(k)'s, large private funds, corporate loans, tranches, equity instruments, derivatives should be publicly tracked. These are the instruments of financial disasters, from the LTCM fiasco to Enron to the current subprime mortgage problems. All financial shenanigans need to be in the light so they can be analyzed and identified before they destroy an economic sector.

  352. Dictatorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only way, as much as it pains me to say it most people who vote are just looking out for numero uno and so don't always vote for the people and policies that are better for the majority. Democracy doesn't work, when will people learn??

    America needs to overhaul Social Security, it's complete crap. Welfare and pensions need to be separate, if you give people incentive to save ie 401k most will.

    Destroy the health insurance industry and rebuild it. Bring in public health insurance for everyone, but if you earn over lets say $50,000 then you pay a penalty tax if you don't take out private health care, if you do get private health insurance you get a tax break.

    More funding for education included lowering college fees.

    Cut federal and state income tax and replace with a universal sales tax on all non essential goods.

    Ban all automatic guns ..... correction ban ALL guns, to hell with the constitution this is a dictatorship.

    Legalize gay marriage, if you don't like it don't go to the wedding.

    Dissolve House of Representatives and Senate, what do these guys do anyway other then take "donations" and waffle?

    Bring the troops home and wait for the rest of the world to ASK for our help.

    Ban ALL versions of Windows.

    Tell everyone to chillax and that things will be ok, Iran will not destroy your way of life.

    Build giant moon laser to take over the wor... oops sorry that ones a secret.

    Supreme Leader
    Dave

  353. I am not even electable, but... by Mutatis+Mutandis · · Score: 1

    (1) Close Gitmo and the CIA's secret prisons. Ensure that everyone who committed or organized crimes, such as abduction, torture, and illegal listening operations, under the previous administration(s) is duly prosecuted. Don't give ANY pardons, not even to Dubyah himself. The good reputation of the US needs to be restored.

    (2) Scale down the presence in Iraq, as there is no other option, but stay there as long as the Iraqis want it. The USA messed up the country badly, it now has a duty to see it through. Listen to commanders on the ground. Respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government.

    (3) Slash military budgets by 20% or so -- there is no need to outspend the rest of the world combined, and there is sufficient pork and useless prestige projects in the budget to make that cut without endangering the safety of the USA. Spend the rest of the money on useful things, such as body armour, suitable vehicles and decent care for wounded soldiers.

    (4) Seriously reform the legal system, to make it run faster and fairer, and restrict unethical behaviour of prosecutors and defense lawyers. Everybody deserves an actual fair trial, and currently most cases are ended by plea-bargaining because the US legal system can't handle the case load.

    (5) Start a serious program to reduce global warming and the dependence of the USA on (imported) expensive oil.

    (6) Reform the health care system on the principle that people are free to choose their insurer, but must all have one. Cut out excessive profits, huge advertising budgets, and ambulance-chasing lawyers. Invest in prevention.

  354. Operation: America - Fuck Yeah by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

    1) Push for a massive renewable energy subsidy program- bring down the cost of solar and wind power, and work to phase out old plants in the order of coal, then natural gas, ending with nuclear. Pay for by removing tax subsidies for coal & oil companies; promote occupational training to move these workers over to green technology sector.

    2) Sign a new international agreement on climate change, pushing not just for a reduction of CO2 emissions, but specific goals, such as 20% renewable energy by a certain year, co-op research programs for renewable energy, and international green standards on biofuel production and carbon offset programs. Further increase fuel-efficiency standards, and promote cellulosic ethanol production. Push for higher ethanol % in all gasoline supplies.

    3) Pull the military out of Iraq as soon as realistically possible, leaving only the minimum number of troops necessary to guard the embassy and engage in anti-al qaeda operations if necessary.

    4) Shift international focus back to Afghanistan and Pakistan; push for full U.N. cooperation in these matters; continue to pressure Pakistan for democratic reforms, and to aid in tracking down Al-Qaeda, but avoid direct military intervention at all costs. Increase humanitarian aid to Pakistan and further attempt to restore America's image in the world.

    5) Attempt to scale back military programs that are deemed unnecessary for anti-terrorism operations, such as missile defense, F/A-18 Hornet, and F-22 Raptor. Redirect these funds to #4. Return to a focus on covert ops and intelligence gathering to combat Al-Qaeda, rather than military intervention. Foster more cooperation between international intel agencies to bolster credibility.

    6) Reform criminal code for drug-related crimes; push for eliminating jail time for posession offenses, redirect some funding towards rehab programs. Develop new prison work programs such as telecommuting to stimulate economy and pay for prison funding.

    7) Repeal tax breaks for high-income brackets. Institute bracket system on gapital gains tax similar to federal income tax. Re-institute the estate tax. Use this funding to normalize the budget.

    8) Push for universal health care plans, giving every citizen option between employer-based health care, private health care, or several government plans. Work to increase taxes on profits for health insurance companies.

    9) Redirect focus of space program to a long-term jointly funded Mars mission between all ISS nations. Restore short-term funding for robotic exploration missions. Skip Moon landing mission and secure more funding for technological achievement prizes.

    10) Direct more funding towards public transportation usage. Create tax incentives for public transit useage and carpooling; more federal dollars for bus and rail expansion. Coerce auto insurance companies to significantly reduce premiums for those who drive less, encouraging more carpooling and public transit. Promote municipal wi-fi to increase productivity in a public transit environment.

    --
    I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
  355. Oh I already even have my list! by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

    1. Decriminalize simple possession of marijuana.
    2. Refocus budget away from fighter jets to education, establish state boards of education instead of municipal ones. Making school boards municipal has lead to redundant positions chewing up huge amounts of budgetary allowances, and public schools need to be more efficient at turning money into education.
    3. Larger teacher salaries for teachers who perform well.
    4. Establish prizes for much needed advancements in clean energy and materials science.
    5. Recognize the people's rights to not be randomly placed under surveillance or monitoring while in public places or in their homes or online. The Fourth Amendment is there for a reason, and it must have teeth. Establish criminal penalties for law enforcers or municipal administrators who deliberately violate the civil liberties of those under their charge.
    6. Repeal the Patriot Act as enacted, enact new legislation allowing similar powers but with even more specificity regarding the scope of such surveillance, and establishing criminal and civil penalties for law enforcement agencies who misuse what is intended as a National Security matter for petty crimes or drug interdiction.
    7. Close the southern border, but enact a guest worker program such that migrant workers are not impeded and still the southern border should not pose a grave risk to national security from OTMs (Other than Mexican).
    8. Establish the welfare system to only that level which encourages risk taking in business by supplying a safety net, but limit individuals to two years' uninterrupted time on the rolls, require a career plan and schooling for those who take it. Supply childcare for those in secondary school. An educated people is a prosperous one.
    9. Establish presidential awards for small to medium sized businesses whose actions are a benefit to society as a whole, or whose business practices are especially beneficial to their communities.
    10. Allow software patents for truly innovative methods, but overhaul the entire USPTO to remove the possibility for obvious or common methods. Recognize which tasks are mundane and should not be patented. A shopping cart is mundane, a fast MPEG4 motion algorithm is not mundane if its method is novel.
    11. Push software vendors whose tools have become dominant to over 80 percent market share to make those tools cross-platform, or release pertinant information regarding those tools so that compatibility can be achieved. Direct3D would be one such candidate. It has become a standard and yet is inherently tied to only one operating system, which I see as bundling, and a violation of fair trade practices. One cannot purchase the DirectX and Direct3D tools without also purchasing the Windows operating system.
    12. Suggest and support an Amendment to the Constitution recognizing the people's rights to self-protection against threats and harm, and that this right allows Americans to take such steps as they feel is necessary to ensure their safety and survival. This Amendment would also recognize that some individuals behave passive-aggressively, and that current laws do little to thwart harmful yet lawful behavior by those crafty enough to stay within the law. Establish a parallel to "self-defense" legal justification in the form of "excessive antagonism" which recognizes that for some behaviors, the only normal responses may include violence, and this should be taken into consideration in sentencing.
    13. Pardon all people currently imprisoned for marijuana possession alone, institute harsher minimum sentences for rape, child abuse, and murder.
    14. Codify in an Executive Order that the government respects the right of people to keep their property, and that forfeiture and seizure of real estate, vehicles or cash from individuals not charged with a crime is a criminal act of the State, and must cease. Because of the tangible value of such things, there can be no expectation or assurance that agencies and municipalities would not abuse such priveleges.
    15. Establi

  356. ifiwererunningforpresident.com - My ideas by Jonathan+Doe · · Score: 1

    Hello, These are my ideas. http://www.ifiwererunningforpresident.com/ Regards, Jonathan Doe

  357. pay a fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the one child policy in china gets alot of bad press, and i admit i dont know everything about it. i believe after a child women might be given those slow release subcutaneous contraceptive devices, not sure.

    but i also believe that if a woman does have more than one child, that child is not taken and killed, the parents are simply fined.

    even if this is not how it is done in china, i believe that after x children that the parents should have to pay a periodic fee on a sliding scale. i realise it gets complex when you consider welfare, and that this fee would in many cases be coming out of any welfare the parent is receiving, which penalises the child not the parent.

    ok. its a complex issue, but perhaps there is a way to use a financial disincentive.

  358. Okay, fine, I'll throw in my list by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1
    I'm a few hundred comments late to ever hope for any sort of moderation, but here it is:

    1. Recall all troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
    2. Give all recalled troops, who are already familiar with urban warfare, a quick retrain in US Urban Warfare
    3. Identify the territories and hangouts of the most egregious street gangs-- the ones who have no respect for human life or the safety of others. Those who open fire on city streets and run tainted drugs throughout the land.
    4. Select the top ten most dangerous of those gangs. For each, send in an entire battalion of troops. Wipe out those gangs entirely. No mercy, no survivors, no POW. All people, vehicles, assets and buildings associated with those gangs-- gone. Shot, burned, vaporized-- gone.
    5. Put out a public warning to all other gangs in the country: There is a 24 hour amnesty. Any member can turn themselves in at their nearest place of authority. They will be given a full presidential pardon for anything they might have done. Every single one of their assets will be seized and liquidated. Then, they will be put into a "futures" lottery. They may draw a college tuition, they may draw medical experimentation, they may be put into a work squad that will be used to plant and harvest crops. Who knows. After the 24 hours are up:
    6. The army will then be used to systematically eradicate every single remaining gang.
    7. The army will then team up with the Canadian army and do the same thing for Canada. The combined forces will then do the same thing in Mexico. (Combined, because there may be some resistance from the Mexican authorities. The corrupt may need to be overthrown)
    8. Once North America is liberated, we can then turn our attention back to the rest of the world. Let it be well known: If you fuck around, we will destroy you. Not one of these 6 year long, half-hearted multi-billion dollar disasters. The entire might of the army will fall upon you all at once. We will fuck up everything, and help the survivors reconstruct later on. Same deal: Wipe out the worst of the bunch, 24 hour amnesty, then destroy the rest. We will remove the corrupt from power, and give it back to the sovereign nation upon request.

    With the obstacle of gangs and street thugs out of the way, it will be much easier to fund success programs at schools. Take the billions saved, and put that into the country's education. Teachers get paid properly, free tuition to anyone who wants it.

    For a start

  359. The Useless Rantings of a Nearly Powerless Head by mujugaba · · Score: 1

    If I were the President, I would do the following:

    1) Judicial
              1.1) If you are convicted of homicide with irrefutable proof against you, you will be put down. You have no rights if you remove others' rights to live.

              1.2) Remove the pleasures of life from prisons. Ex- TV's, weight benches, PC's, etc. This isn't a vacation to the Bahamas- it's punishment.

              1.3) All court cases that charge someone else for allowing you to be a buffoon will be dismissed and you will foot the bills for all legals fees. Ex- you got burned when you spilled coffee on your lap and it's their fault you got hot coffee, you continued to smoke although there's a warning you'll get cancer and you did, etc.

    2) Production

              2.1) All software products will go through stringent testing to verify that they contain less holes than fishnet stockings (I'm looking at you Microsoft).

              2.2) All vehicles must have get a minimum of 25MPG and must receive in excess of 60MPG by 2015. All automobiles sold in the US must comply with no exceptions.

    3) Taxes

              3.1) Fuel Taxes will be abolished for those who create or manufacture their own fuels. If someone can change his 1980 Diesel Rabbit to run on used French fry oil, good for him. At least someone is trying to relieve the US' dependency on fossil fuels.

              3.2) Higher income families would not receive any breaks on income taxes. I'm truly sorry you are unfortunate enough to be rich.

    4) Rights

              4.1) Driver's License examinations will be more difficult to pass. Each driver must show exceptional ability to handle many various situations and vehicles. The ability to operate a motor vehicle is not a right, it's a privilege. Side note- Insurance companies will follow suit by lowering costs for insurance especially for those with long-standing clean records.

              4.2) SUVs, large trucks and vans will be regulated more strictly. There will be a special license for those who desire to drive these to ensure that the motorist can capably handle them. Families are only allowed to own vans and SUVs if they have more than 3 children under the age of 18 in the household. (I blame you for fossil fuel hikes and not being able to park because you can't maneuver into one parking space.)

    Honestly, I'd never do any of these. The system of checks and balances would ensure that my views and ideas would be voted down by those of more humble intelligence. The only true job I could do would be to give America an icon to equate with the country's leadership, make speeches and look good.

  360. Dissolve the Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first act as President of the United States of America would be to dissolve the United States of America. Let the states deal with everything.

  361. My Presidency in a Nutshell by deanoaz · · Score: 1

    1. Announce that I will not seek a second term and that neither I nor anyone working on my behalf will raise funds or otherwise take part in any future political campaigns until after I have left the Presidency.

    2. Fire and replace all U.S. government employees and contractors who serve at the pleasure of the President (including of course, all U.S. Attorneys). This would not effect civil servants.

    3. Countermand all existing Executive Orders.

    4. Order, through the new department heads I appoint, the cancellation of all government contracts which are not in a state of 100 percent compliance to the performance and budget requirements set when the contracts were approved.

    5. Publicly direct Congress to draft and approve legislation within one year specifically repudiating the 'zero basis presumption' which income taxes against wage earners are based on, and to create a new tax system recognizing that when labor is exchanged for money or goods, there is no tax event because it is an exchange of equal values.

    6. Release Executive Orders which will stifle, cripple, and prevent the functioning of the IRS after one year.

    7. Direct, through the new department heads I appoint, that illegal entry to the United States will be prevented to the utmost ability of the U.S. Border Patrol, Justice Department, and such other government departments as may be useful. All department heads will be put on notice that this, and the detection and removal of illegal aliens already here, are their top priorities and that they will be removed and prosecuted if they fail to pursue them in earnest, while they will be rewarded with desirable appointments upon their success.

    --
    If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
  362. the obvious by FlashBuster3000 · · Score: 1

    release all top-secret info about area 51!

  363. Ron Paul is the *least* racist candidate I see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actions speak louder than words. Regardless of what Ron Paul may have *said* (a quit skim reveals no smoking gun, anyway), he wants to end insanely racist policies like the "War on Drugs".

    Who would you rather have: somebody like Al Gore who *claims* to be for racial equality but wants to solve the drug problem with "more police on the streets" and even "use the military to support our drug law enforcement efforts", or somebody like Ron Paul who talks a little crazy but would actually end the "War on Drugs" and actually bring about positive change for racial equality?

    I also find the "homophobe" claim strange. Ron Paul has been quite explicit that the government should not be in the business of marriage, and that he would let anybody (gays included) get married, because the Constitution guarantees freedom of association. How many other candidates have spoken in favor of gay marriage?

    People seem to have trouble with candidates who say "I personally believe in XYZ, but I believe in the Constitution more than XYZ, so I won't use the office to regulate XYZ". And yet, Ron Paul's voting record shows that he does exactly this.

    Anyway, your strategy is not new. When somebody counter to the mainstream starts to get popular, you can't officially keep him out of the public discourse, so instead you try to destroy his credibility. They've done this since long before you or I was born.

    Ron Paul is against the federal government being involved in so many things, and I agree with that, and I believe that he'll use the office of the President in agreement with that, so what he says or believes or has sex with in his bedroom is of no matter to me.

  364. sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Based on the simple fact that you can't smoke yourself to death but that you can drink yourself to death
    I'm sorry to tell you, but yes you can smoke yourself to death. You can certainly die of asphyxiation, unless for some reason marijuana makes one so fantastically uber-special that breathing is no longer required.

    I will concede that it would likely be difficult to smoke oneself to death (and die by only the smoke and not its long-term effects), but anyone who discards entirely the possibility of smoking oneself to death is just plain wrong. But simple physics tells us that yes you can smoke yourself to death. The combustion of smoking anything will compete with you for oxygen. Likewise, the gases and solids of combustion that you are voluntarily inhaling are competing in your own lungs with oxygen. You are exposing living tissue to foreign substances, which is dangerous any way you look at it.

    heat the plant to the point where the THC is released and you don't inhale any particles
    So THC is not a particle? What is it then, if it is somehow non-particulate matter? Is THC the dark matter of the universe that we have been looking for? I very strongly doubt that any manner of combustion for recreational use of marijuana is so complete as to provide you with THC and only THC in a complete, pure, and unadulterated form.

    no one has died from marijuana poisoning
    That all comes down to how one defines "marijuana poisoning". There are plenty of ways to die that come about due to use (and misuse) of marijuana. And as I described earlier, you can certainly die from the overuse of it if you really want to.

    Now before you go after me as some anti-pot uber-conservative, let me clarify where I stand on the use of marijuana. Frankly, I could care less what recreational drugs you want to use in your own home. However, when pro-pot lobbyists go about promoting marijuana as being as healthy as milk, I take exception to the lack of factual information behind the argument. The way I see it, if you want to get wasted on your own dollar, in your own home, and can do it without impeding on the public at large, then go for it. But if people want to wander around the streets (on foot or in a vehicle) while under the influence, then they deserve to be thrown in jail and treated like criminals. Keep the drugs and their effects out of the public sight, and I could care less.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:sorry, wrong again by dave562 · · Score: 1
      The way I see it, if you want to get wasted on your own dollar, in your own home, and can do it without impeding on the public at large, then go for it. But if people want to wander around the streets (on foot or in a vehicle) while under the influence, then they deserve to be thrown in jail and treated like criminals. Keep the drugs and their effects out of the public sight, and I could care less.

      So you would have it treated the same as alcohol then? That seems to be what you are saying. I have a similar position, if you are coming from where it seems like you are coming from. I believe that there are laws to deal with the side effects of drug use and abuse. Whether those laws cover driving under the influence, public intoxication, or all the way to assault, burglary and whatever other fallouts there are from the use and abuse of drugs. Because all of those laws are on the books there don't need to be any laws to specifically address the use and possession of the substances themselves.

    2. Re:sorry, wrong again by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Your point is trivial. You've crossed from raising a point that may be semi-reasonable to something totally pedantic. Has a case of a cannabis/THC overdose been recorded in human history? Has anyone died from cannabis smoke inhalation (and I'm not talking about a malignant cancer, which is still a stretch)? Do you honestly think that smoking ones self to death is a valid point with regard to the legislation of cannabis when an instance has never been recorded? If so, would you regulate something like...firewood by the same standard?

      --

      -Turkey

    3. Re:sorry, wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You *do* realise that there are methods for using cannabis which *don't* involve combustion, right?

      So if we're talking about just the substances, instead of the delivery method, then THC is far, far safer for your body than alcohol. One has a relatively easy-to-hit LD50, while the other is not easy to reach by normal means. (But it does exist) This is fact, plain and simple. (Compare the number of yearly deaths from alcohol and it's effects to the number of deaths attributed to THC, ever.)

      Keep the drugs and their effects out of the public sight, and I could care less.

      You're kidding me, right? Ever heard of a bar? How is a bar not public? How about patio seating? Taking your medicine in public would be illegal under this regime? Smoking in public, open air?

      How is some stoned guy walking down the sidewalk or out for a slice of pizza a threat to society, genius?

    4. Re:sorry, wrong again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to tell you, but yes you can smoke yourself to death. You can certainly die of asphyxiation, unless for some reason marijuana makes one so fantastically uber-special that breathing is no longer required.

      You are an idiot. When someone says "he drank himself to death" do you think anyone ever thinks that he drowned on a non-alcoholic beverage? No, they always believe that he either drank until the long-term effects resulted in his death (blown liver or whatever) or he drank so much at one time that he died of blood alcohol poisoning. The equivalent, smoking so much that your THC levels become toxic, is impossible. Thus, it is impossible to smoke yourself to death. You can asphyxiate on the smoke, but that is not related to smoking oneself to death, just like you can drown in beer, but that isn't related to drinking oneself to death.

      That all comes down to how one defines "marijuana poisoning". There are plenty of ways to die that come about due to use (and misuse) of marijuana.

      Then name a single one that any reasonable person (obviously not you) would consider a "poisoning." Starvation is not a form of "poisoning" any more than getting drunk and crashing would be called alcohol poisoning. There is a specific "alcohol poisoning" term. It is a medical term with a clear definition. Perhaps you get some leeway in playing with the words since there is no "THC poisoning" or such. You want to know why? Because it is impossible for someone to overdose on THC. Well, I guess anything is possible, but no one in the history of the planet has overdosed on THC. Though plenty of people die by overdosing on water, but I have yet to see that banned. There may be some negative consequences to marijuana, but you don't have to lie to make it look worse.

      But if people want to wander around the streets (on foot or in a vehicle) while under the influence, then they deserve to be thrown in jail and treated like criminals.

      Ah yes. We should make everything illegal you don't want to look at. That's freedom for you. Well, at least the Puritanical Freedom the Pilgrims sought. Freedom for them to do what they want, and the freedom to punish everyone that doesn't do exactly what they want. How very white of you. Why don't you call for a law to arrest people that dress poorly? Or perhaps you don't like facial hair? Just arrest all the people that don't shave. That will make your life better when you won't have to see facial hair and all the nasty things that go along with it.

    5. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot.
      Always a strong way to start an argument. Go on...

      drank until the long-term effects resulted in his death
      So the long-term effects of drinking can kill but the long-term effects of smoking weed cannot? And how do you come to this conclusion? You have completely ignored the biological statements I made before, are you exempt from biology for some reason?

      smoking so much that your THC levels become toxic, is impossible
      And how do you come to that conclusion? Just because you and your dealer said so, it must be true? Everything has a lethal dose at some level; there was even an article here on slashdot a while back about a woman who died from drinking too much water in too little time. While the water itself wasn't toxic in the classic sense in that case, she did die from taking in too much water for her body to handle.

      You most certainly could take in a toxic level of THC. Just because it hasn't made the news with someone reaching that by smoking doesn't make it impossible. Consider also how long it took before auto-erotic asphyxiation was ever reported - a similar level of shame could be associated with THC overdose such that if Johnny smoked too much and expired, his parents could well have withheld it from the press.

      We should make everything illegal you don't want to look at.
      Wow, thats a fantastic case of selective reading. Have you considered the public safety aspect of letting drug users wander around? All I asked was that if people want to use whatever recreational drug they like, that they stay inside. Which in reality is what the current drug laws come down to. How many people do you know that have ever been arrested for using pot in their own homes, without doing anything else illegal at the same time? Sure there are plenty of fantastic stories about cops breaking down doors while people were smoking pot, but how many of them can be substantiated to really be only about pot? Especially when you have to take the word of a stoned person against the word of the law enforcement personnel?

      There may be some negative consequences to marijuana, but you don't have to lie to make it look worse.
      You have yet to show any lies from what I said. Really, the burden should be on you. There may be some positive consequences to heavy marijuana use, though you have yet to show any. Instead you use propaganda to try to discount health concerns. Your arguments aren't much different from the tobacco lobby when they were trying to deny the link between cigarettes and cancer back in the 80s. You really should stop to ask who your lobbying is really helping - yourself or the people that are making money off of selling marijuana to you.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Has a case of a cannabis/THC overdose been recorded in human history?
      We cannot be sure that it hasn't happened. You can die from overdosing on just about anything. And if someone did overdose on THC, it could well have been reported as something else to save the family the shame of it getting out to the press. Who would want to be the parents of the first person to die from inhaling too much THC? Hell, we know that kids die from huffing paint fumes and the like, but it rarely if ever is reported as such.

      and I'm not talking about a malignant cancer, which is still a stretch
      How exactly do you feel this is a stretch? Do you realize the processes that cause cells to metastisize? Have you never seen someone who ended up with skin cancer from too much tanning? Cells can only survive so much abuse and recover to follow the normal cell pathways. Too much abuse one way or another can and does lead to cancerous growth.

      legislation of cannabis when an instance has never been recorded
      You clearly didn't read my entire post or you wouldn't be asking this question. I never said I wanted to outlaw it outright. If you want to get stoned in your own house, and stay there, I have no problem with that. I have a problem if you chose to chance the well-being of others by venturing out into public while under the influence. Just as people can and will be arrested for drunk in public, I support arresting people who are stoned in public. Similarly, you cannot be arrested for being drunk in your living room (provided you don't break any other laws), and I could care less if you want to be stoned in your living room.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      So you would have it treated the same as alcohol then? That seems to be what you are saying.
      Absolutely. Congratulations, you seem to be the first person to reply to my post after having read it in its entirety. I'd like to mod your post up, but obviously I cannot moderate and discuss in the same thread.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    8. Re:sorry, wrong again by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

      "We cannot be sure that it hasn't happened. You can die from overdosing on just about anything. And if someone did overdose on THC, it could well have been reported as something else to save the family the shame of it getting out to the press."

      If you knew anything about the subject, you'd realize why saying this makes you an imbecile.

    9. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      If you knew anything about the subject, you'd realize why saying this makes you an imbecile.
      Wow, how can I even stand a chance at arguing against such well-constructed logic? We all know that of course any time you insult the person you are trying to argue with, you automatically win, right?

      Feel free to reply with an actual argument explaining why you feel that marijuana is so inherently safe, if you actually have reason to support your feelings. I have already explained that there is indeed a risk of lung cancer associated with smoking, as well as the chance of asphyxiation. If you somehow believe that physics, chemistry, and biology are all irrelevant to marijuana, I'd love to know why.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    10. Re:sorry, wrong again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And how do you come to that conclusion? Just because you and your dealer said so, it must be true? Everything has a lethal dose at some level; there was even an article here on slashdot a while back about a woman who died from drinking too much water in too little time.

      Wow, you are an idiot. I stated that water has killed, and in response, you tell me that water can kill. With your ability to bring up new and exciting support for your arguments that I've already mentioned, it's no surprise that all bow down before your rhetorical skills. Did you notice that I said that water can kill, and that there are documented cases of water killing, and that the number of people killed by water, oh, say this year exceeds the number of THC-related deaths recorded over the history of time.

      Really, the burden should be on you.

      Yes, that's what all the people say that have an unsupported opinion. You know you are right, but you shouldn't have to prove your unsubstantiated opinion.

      There may be some positive consequences to heavy marijuana use, though you have yet to show any.

      I want to know what you are smoking. You are apparently equating the lack of a positive with the existence of many negatives. I'll let you in on a secret, they aren't the same thing. Note, I'm not stating that there is or isn't any positive or negative, just that you are changing what you are claiming.

      Instead you use propaganda to try to discount health concerns.


      What propaganda? Stating that water kills? That's so inflammatory you said the same thing yourself. Stating that THC overdose has never happened in the history of the planet? Well, I guess the simple truth can be annoying and thus "propaganda" if it disagrees with your unsupported opinions.

      You really should stop to ask who your lobbying is really helping - yourself or the people that are making money off of selling marijuana to you.


      Well, you wanted me to point out a lie, I'll leave alone the massive numbers of other lies you are stating and pick this one. I have never bought marijuana. I have never smoked marijuana, so your statement that I have is a lie. You are a liar. So, when a proven liar like you makes all sorts of other unsupported statements that look like lies, should I believe you, or think they are more lies? Since they contradict facts, I'll presume that everything you say is a lie. So far, that would make me more right than wrong.

      Oh, and if you get bored, try Google. It's a cool toy. You can find things like a government sponsored study to prove marijuana is as bad for driving as drinking, but they instead found that people that were high were safer than sober people. It seems that the marijuana resulted in people over-estimating their impairment and driving even more safely as a result. Or you could find that cocaine is perfectly fine to prescribe, use for medical research and such, but marijuana is unable to be prescribed, according to the FDA. This is despite the fact that it is the only non-injected drug found to effectively decrease nausea in some chemo-therapy patients. This is despite it is one of the most effective drugs in fighting glaucoma. The federal government makes it illegal to prescribe to cancer patients that don't want to shoot up after every session just so they don't have to throw up for hours straight. And behind all those regulations, I see liars like you that would rather people suffer from disease than have to see someone that is high walking down the street. I've seen 3 year olds more mature than you. You are a petty little man that hates people and lies in order to cause pain to others.

    11. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are an idiot.
      Wow, your argument is fascinating. I tell you how marijuana is not safe, and you respond by insulting me. You still seem to feel for some reason that marijuana is the safest thing on the planet, completely ignoring the chemistry and biology of lung cancer and the physics of asphyxiation. But if you believe for some reason that people are immune to both of those while high, then you are free to do so. But I'll have to tell you that those things do indeed happen. Just because you think that they don't happen doesn't make it so.

      As I already stated, particulate matter in contact with living tissue (such as lung tissue) has the ability to cause cancerous growth. So unless you have some way to smoke without taking in particulate matter, then you are putting yourself at risk for cancer.

      But really, why you need to make this such a personal assault on me I don't understand. I never said I wanted to take away your pot. I just wanted to point out that it isn't as safe as people like you insist on believing it to be. If you read back to my earlier comments, and read them in their entirety (which I would never hold you to do), you will see that the only laws I support against marijuana are the ones that make it a crime to be under the influence in public. I see these as being equivalent to the alcohol laws, where it is against the law to be intoxicated in public.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    12. Re:sorry, wrong again by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Truth be told, you *are being an idiot. That is, you're using arguments that you wouldn't make about other substances. There are dozens of OTC drugs that you could fatally overdose on (probably more easily than marijuana), yet they're considered safe enough to pass out to anybody who wants them, in any quantities they choose to buy.

      Instead of accepting the clear evidence of science, which says that you cannot lethally overdose on marijuana, you start talking about smoke asphyxiation. By those standards, you could overdose on tobacco, corn cobs, firewood... basically anything combustible. People don't die in house fires, they overdose on their homes. It's idiotic to single out marijuana for a property that it shares with both your cigarettes and your armchair.

      It's also idiotic to make up a conspiracy theory to explain the lack of reports of a medical impossibility. Why would "shame" over a child's THC overdose compel so many parents into silence, when overdoses on other substances like cocaine cause them to take out ginormous "This is what happened to our Billy, so don't let it happen to you" billboards? You've offered no explanation, but the fact that you think marijuana use is so incredibly shameful does say a lot about why you're so keen to fight this losing battle.

      Yes, smoking marijuana increases the risk of lung cancer. But marijuana can be consumed in all sorts of ways (smoking just being the most convenient and the one that requires no baking skills), and even with smoking, you're not coming close to the risk incurred from a pack-a-day cigarette habit. Alcohol is also a known carcinogen. If you're going to maintain that marijuana should be illegal, you should be arguing just as vehemently for making tobacco and alcohol illegal.

      The people currently making huge money off of selling marijuana are able to do so precisely because it's illegal. It's not like growing or preparing it is rocket science. Why the hell would "Big Marijuana" as it currently exists, want it to be legalized?

      Time after time, your reasoning has shown gaping holes. How's that cognitive dissonance working out for you?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    13. Re:sorry, wrong again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I tell you how marijuana is not safe, and you respond by insulting me.

      Another lie. I respond with a long post addressing your points. I point out at the begining that you are completely ignoring everything that contradicts your unfounded opinions (you are an idiot) and you just go on to prove me right by lying again about what I did or did not post. Oh, and could you tell me again how marijuana is not safe? I seem to have missed how eating a brownie made from marijuana was shown to be unsafe in your previous post.

      But really, why you need to make this such a personal assault on me I don't understand.

      Because liars like you are the reason that we have the war on drugs. The war on drugs has taken away many rights we used to have. And you would rather give up rights than have to be subjected to having to see something unpleasant. People like you are the reason this country is in a downward spiral. Make new laws to ban things we don't like with no proof they are actually harmful. The laws are much more harmful than the activity they are trying to prevent. And you are smug about. You apparently think that anyone who disagrees with you must be a pot head wanting a cheap high. That makes you an idiot. When you persist with such notions after you have been corrected makes you a liar.

      As I already stated, particulate matter in contact with living tissue (such as lung tissue) has the ability to cause cancerous growth. So unless you have some way to smoke without taking in particulate matter, then you are putting yourself at risk for cancer.

      Well, you are implying that the only way to administer THC is through smoking, which makes you a liar. That is the preferred way for cancer patients, as taking brownies and such run into the same problems as the anti-nausia pills, patients have the nasty habit of throwing them up before they can take effect. But for casual users, there are manners in which the THC can be administered orally to avoid the lung issue. If that's your only reason for complaining about the health problems they cause, then that makes you a liar as well, since you know that people can eat it for the same effect. Your statements seem calculated to prove a conclusion you've reached long ago, and not to share information or debate a point. Unfortunately, that conclusion you reached is wrong, so your efforts to prove it (marijuana use causes cancer) make you look like a liar. Try actually addressing what is written, and not assuming the person is a pot-head that smokes marijuana, and you'll help curb that lying habit of yours.

      Oh, and while you are at it, stop supporting laws that take away freedoms and give no benefits. It'll make life much easier for everyone.

    14. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I was going to actually dissect your continued lack of argument, but its no longer worth the time to remove the insults and try to find the nuggets of information that you want to present.

      Clearly, you have convinced yourself that marijuana is the safest thing on the planet. Good for you. If you refuse to even consider the possibility that someone could develop lung cancer by inhaling smoke, the tobacco companies would probably like to offer you a job promoting their products in less-developed countries. If you feel that none of physics, chemistry, or biology apply to marijuana usage, then there's no reason to even continue this discussion.

      And being as you seem incapable of responding without insulting me at least 3 times in a single post, it seems we have nothing left to talk about.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    15. Re:sorry, wrong again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I was going to actually dissect your continued lack of argument, but its no longer worth the time to remove the insults and try to find the nuggets of information that you want to present.

      Well, I find it interesting that you start the insults first (calling people drug addicts) and complain the loudest when insults are used against you. Perhaps you should be so quick to insult others if it bothers you. Oh wait, you are a lying hypocrite, so it is what I'd expect.

      If you refuse to even consider the possibility that someone could develop lung cancer by inhaling smoke, the tobacco companies would probably like to offer you a job promoting their products in less-developed countries.

      You are lying again. You said that one couldn't take marijuana without risking cancer. I asked how eating a brownie causes cancer. And you take that as proof that I'm claiming smoking is safe. Again, that makes you a liar.

      And being as you seem incapable of responding without insulting me at least 3 times in a single post, it seems we have nothing left to talk about.

      If you don't like being called a liar, well, quit lying. Is it really that hard?

    16. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      (calling people drug addicts)
      There you are putting words in my mouth. Who did I ever say was a drug addict in this context? You are trying to extrapolate things I didn't say from things that I did say, without actually reading what I said in its entirety. But we can continue to play this game, as you seem to enjoy it so...

      a lying hypocrite
      There's your first insult hurled at me in this response. And its a fairly short response, so maybe you won't be able to reach your minimum of three in this one...

      You said that one couldn't take marijuana without risking cancer.
      Again, putting words in my mouth. I started by saying that marijuana is not safer than alcohol, and I stand by that statement. I said that anytime you inhale particulate matter you risk cancer. That is not the same statement.

      you a liar.
      Second insult. Not much space yet, but you're well on your way.

      being called a liar, well, quit lying. Is it really that hard
      Wow, you managed to squeeze in your third insult in this small reply. And yet you have yet to actually respond to what I said before. Its OK, I'll remind you again what I said so you can again not respond to it.

      Anytime that you inhale particulate matter, you expose said matter to your living lung tissue. And this exposure puts you at risk for developing cancer. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you are breathing in the smoke of tobacco, marijuana, or crack, or inhaling asbestos at a construction site, you are still subjecting your lungs to substances that they would not otherwise encounter.

      And unless biology, chemistry, and physics are all suspended by the intake of marijuana by-products, you are putting yourself at risk when you smoke marijuana. It is not inherently safe as you claim. If someone wants to chose to expose themselves to it, I could care less. I just don't want to share in their exposure, or the aftereffects thereof.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    17. Re:sorry, wrong again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You wrote:the people that are making money off of selling marijuana to you

      There you are putting words in my mouth. Who did I ever say was a drug addict in this context?

      Well, read your own words and tell me who you were directing that towards, and you answered your own question.

      And unless biology, chemistry, and physics are all suspended by the intake of marijuana by-products, you are putting yourself at risk when you smoke marijuana.

      I specifically ask what the problems are when it is eaten, not smoked, and you respond about it being smoked. What do you think of such a response? Is it truly a response to my question? Or is it a non-sequitur designed to hide the truth that you are 100% wrong? I'll go for the latter.

      Again, putting words in my mouth. I started by saying that marijuana is not safer than alcohol, and I stand by that statement.

      No one in the history of the planet has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. More people died last weekend from alcohol-related crashes than all cancer deaths linked to smoking marijuana. People don't smoke marijuana and beat the crap out of their wives, they are lucky if they can get the energy up to get off the couch for more Chee-toes. So, tell me again how alcohol is as safe or safer than marijuana. You might have to look long and hard to find deaths linked to marijuana, though, in order to support your opinion. All one has to do to see the results of the "no less safe" alcohol is turn on the news and see another family killed by a drunk driver, or talk to the one of millions of people that had an alcoholic family member. I think they might have a different opinion on your safe. As for marijuana, families may hate that someone is smoking, but they rarely feel unsafe around them, they don't have stories of their livers rotting out from under them. But don't let actual reality conflict with your made up utopia, where alcohol is safe and marijuana kills tens of thousands every year.

      There, an insult free post (well, mostly, as the tone is acerbic). Will you now address any of the points made? Or will you come up with some other reason to avoid actually answering the points made? I'm guessing I'll get something other than an answer, as the answer is probably something that you find personally objectionable (that marijuana is safer than alcohol, even for habitual users and especially for those around them, and that it is possible to ingest marijuana without smoking it).

    18. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      read your own words and tell me who you were directing that towards,
      First of all, I never said anyone was an addict. Second, if we are to believe your statements about it being so fantastically safe, then we should expect that nobody in the history of the universe was ever a marijuana addict anyways, right? So you're just taking the words and expanding them into places where they weren't intended to go.

      ask what the problems are when it is eaten, not smoked
      Which is irrelevant when the question comes down to the safety of the product. And how many people eat it rather than smoke it? I know of a lot more people who smoke it than eat it.

      No one in the history of the planet has ever died from an overdose of marijuana.
      You continue to reiterate this statement that you must know you cannot possibly back up. Are you a medical examiner? I rather doubt it. But even if we suspend reality and pretend that you are, any one examiner performs only a very small portion of autopsies, such that no one person could know for certain the causes of death for even a rather small population, let alone the entire world.

      Add to that the fact that most marijuana is grown in third-world countries, where the likelihood of cause of death being determined for anyone is rather slim. How then could you possibly support your feeling that nobody has ever died from marijuana? You can't. You're pushing pro-marijuana propaganda.

      And all that I was trying to accomplish with my original post is to debunk the statement that marijuana is so inherently safe. Instead I get replies like yours where people continue to push propaganda, with no means or even efforts to support it.

      their livers rotting out from under them.
      Take your choice, lung cancer or liver failure. However, there is a significant difference, in the fact that you risk lung cancer every time you inhale foreign substances. On the other hand, the liver is quite capable of handling reasonable amounts of alcohol in the bloodstream - the reason why we have alcohol dehydrogenase in the human proteome.

      Furthermore, if you want to say that someone with a marijuana problem is so easy to deal with, try dealing with someone who isn't willing to go a day without getting high. They may not be violent, but they are still a burden to those around them.

      where alcohol is safe and marijuana kills tens of thousands every year.
      I never said that alcohol was safe. But of course you couldn't bother to read my initial post all the way through. I said that it is factually questionable to say that marijuana is safer than alcohol because they involve different risks (in the same post I mentioned trying to compare sky diving vs bungee jumping).

      But don't let actual reality conflict with your made up utopia
      Right back at you on your "history" statement that you cannot possibly support. Being as there have been documented deaths directly from smoking tobacco, and plenty of people chose that route for marijuana, it is not possible for you to ever demonstrate that nobody has ever died from marijuana use.

      Hell, at this point I'd be surprised if you even were willing to admit that marijuana is less safe than air.

      But ultimately, it doesn't matter. You have your opinion that will never be swayed by any amount of reality. You seem to believe that there are no negative consequences from marijuana ever, regardless of the physical realities of the chemical and biological pathways that lead to cancer. Furthermore, nobody other than you and I are likely reading this thread this far - hence I won't even bother wasting my karma bonus to reply to you.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    19. Re:sorry, wrong again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Second, if we are to believe your statements about it being so fantastically safe, then we should expect that nobody in the history of the universe was ever a marijuana addict anyways, right?

      What, you can't even get out of the chute without lying. What does "safe" have to do with addiction? Lots of people are addicted to gambling, yet gambling doesn't cause cancer. Does that mean they aren't really addicts? How about people that aren't addicted to driving, yet die in crashes, since driving is unsafe and people do it, they can only do it because they are addicted? Your logic is wrong. You know it is wrong. You present it anyway. That makes you a liar. You seem to get annoyed when I call you a liar, yet you refuse to stop lying.

      And all that I was trying to accomplish with my original post is to debunk the statement that marijuana is so inherently safe.

      Well, we can all agree that inhaling anything other than clean air is inherently unsafe, yet you continue to fail to address the point you actually tried to make. If marijuana is inherently unsafe, then what are the medical problems caused by eating marijuana brownies? If you can answer that, then you have supported your position. If you answer back that smoking is bad, then I have to assume that you are in fact conceeding that your point was 100% wrong: you would be agreeing that marijuana is inherently safe. So put up or shut up. What medical problem does casual eating of marijuana brownies cause?

      *crickets chirping*

      I thought so.

    20. Re:sorry, wrong again by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      If marijuana is inherently unsafe, then what are the medical problems caused by eating marijuana brownies?
      You need to examine the entire metabolic pathway of the compounds present in marijuana before you can declare it to be safe. If you think that marijuana use is so inherently safe, then take a look at this peer-reviewed paper: Acute cardiovascular fatalities following cannabis use. Which comes from a country that is very lenient towards marijuana use, and yet cites over a dozen other papers that have also found deaths immediately attributable to marijuana.

      What, you can't even get out of the chute without lying.
      I have no idea what you are trying to claim with that statement other than just reiterating your hatred towards me, in case there was any doubt.

      What does "safe" have to do with addiction?
      Safety and addiction have plenty to do with each other. You're trying to claim that marijuana is completely safe and has no ill effects. Yet people do develop psychological dependencies (addiction) towards it.

      yet you continue to fail to address the point you actually tried to make
      I would say you continue to not read the point I initially made. I replied to a post that claimed marijuana is much safer than alcohol. I replied by saying that it really isn't any safer than alcohol, rather it has different risks associated with it. You can't say that one activity is "safer" than another when the risks are not the same. Furthermore, you cannot say that marijuana use is completely without risk.

      And of course you responded with a statement that you could never back up, claiming that nobody in the history of the world has died from marijuana overdose. That is a statement that even a medical examiner, qualified to actually determine the cause of death for an individual, would be foolish to ever claim. You simply cannot claim to be knowledgeable on the deaths of every human being over the course of 10,000+ years. And beyond that, there is little to no documentation for the cause of death for many of those people.

      What medical problem does casual eating of marijuana brownies cause?
      This little gem is pretty amazing. Why would someone even do an investigation into marijuana brownies? Where on earth would you get funding to do that? Considering how difficult it would be to control that, it would be virtually impossible to get statistically meaningful data from such an experiment.

      However, as more is understood about the metabolic pathways of THC, it can be said that intake of the chemical is not 100% safe in any form. You are always taking a risk when using marijuana. I could care less how many brownies someone wants to eat, as long as they keep their selves at home until they're no longer under the influence.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    21. Re:sorry, wrong again by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I could care less how many brownies someone wants to eat, as long as they keep their selves at home until they're no longer under the influence.

      Which comes back to the point that I was originally trying to make. You spout all sorts of lies about how dangerous it is compared to alcohol and such, but it really comes down to you wanting to make everything you don't like illegal. Start with the Jews, why don't you?

  365. Well if we're gonna fantasize... 4 things by greymond · · Score: 1

    Well the first thing besides bringing all our troops home would be to also dismantle/get rid of all our military bases in foreign countries. I don't believe it's America's duty to police the world so we'd have a very hands off policy when it came to other countries and what they do within their own borders. They can't dictate what we do so why should we dictate what they do. Along with this the supplies and charity that the government gives to other countries such as Africa and supporting Israel would stop - no I'm not a bigot or racist I just feel that those things should be handled by private organizations not our government and our citizens tax dollars.

    The second thing (granted I think the first thing has a lot of steps but I'm summarizing them) would be to redo corporate policy on hiring forms and questionnaires. I'd make it impossible to ask a person's ethnicity, instead we would do what the rest of the world does and ask country of origin. If you're born in America, you're American, I don't care if you have Hispanic parents or Polish Grandparents, you're American.

    Third, I'd dump a lot of tax dollars into supporting Community and State colleges. Ya the ivory leagues are nice and all, but the average american can't afford them and since I believe everyone is entitled to a good education, I believe we really need to support community colleges and state colleges, especially because of the fact that their students test scores and general knowledge don't always rank as high as some universities. A lot of tax dollars would also go into public high schools for similar reasons.

    Last is jobs, with a lot more people within our borders and unemployment the way it is right now we'd need to create jobs. I'd have a lot of government jobs open where people would be hired to clean up their local communities, and I do not mean more trash men. Rather I'd create a government run entity that exists for the sole purpose of having people pick up the trash in parks, on streets (not just street cleaners that blow shit around) repaint faded walls, redo the tiling in cracked areas, fix the god damn pot holes in the streets that get ignored because a new freeway supposedly needs to be built first. Cut and trim trees and mow the lawns of every citizen's house with grass.

  366. OT: Your sig by sconeu · · Score: 1

    I love your sig.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:OT: Your sig by Copid · · Score: 1

      Thanks. So far, you're the second person to comment on it. I have to admit that I didn't come up with it, and I don't remember who did. I just though it was incredibly funny at the time. It's ./ appropriate, anyway.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  367. MOD PARENT DOWN by ahuard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why should I be forced to pay, at gunpoint, for some poor guy's health care? What are those taxes doing for me? The original purpose of taxes were not to redistribute wealth, but to provide basic community services such as police protection and national defense. Taxes are not supposed to be taken entirely from one group to support another.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's my feeling that health care and education *are* basic community services, at least in any civilised society. i'm quite happy to have my tax monies go to support a more civilised society.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Because you choose (or were born) in a civilized country. If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country where you don't have to pay taxes.

      Or if there are enough like minded people in your own country, you can vote in politicians that will lower the taxes in your own country. Of course, don't blame me when you get shot and killed by someone poor who just want money for his next meal.

    3. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Paying for the poor guy's health care means that the risk of him spreading infectious diseases to you and your family goes down.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    4. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, don't blame me when you get shot and killed by someone poor who just want money for his next meal

      That's what the police are for. He didn't say he wouldn't pay any taxes.
    5. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by astrotek · · Score: 1

      Because he is presumably a citizen of the United States he will still have to pay taxes.

      The US is the only country on earth that requires citizens outside the country to pay taxes. Oh and theres something like a two year wait to drop your citizenship. I think it takes longer to not be an American than to become an American.

    6. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Typical American response, indicating that the poster clearly doesn't believe that he will ever be "some poor guy". He will never become too sick or injured to work. He will never have his business fold beneath him, or his employer collapse above him. If the unwashed masses need more assistance than the wealthy see fit to voluntarily give, then they are leeches.

      He is America Man!

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    7. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by joggle · · Score: 1

      Why should the parent post by me be modded down? Because you disagree with me?

      The original purpose of taxes at the federal level were to repay war debts from the Civil War. After these debts were paid the federal income tax was repealed, only to be reinstated a couple of decades later in 1894 (although this was blocked by the US Supreme Court until the 16th amendment was passed). The 16th amendment was specifically passed to redistribute wealth, with tax rates of 73% for the wealthiest shortly after the amendment was passed.

      One thing I think people who always scream for lower taxes is that they are very much ignorant of the history of taxes (and of wealth distribution) in the US. According to this article by the New York Times in 1922:

      The United States has levied higher income taxes than any other country in the world, and those taxes have probably been more completely paid than in any other country.

      Despite this, the US experienced a remarkable decade of growth and prosperity until the crash of '29 (due to a public lack of confidence in banks and lack of regulation for seedy stock companies).

      We now have the lowest tax rates among industrialized countries in the world and yet people still want them lower. I bet most have never lived in one of the other industrialized countries where tax rates are much higher or know anything about their economies. Countries such as the Netherlands have a much stronger economy than here with far superior public services and infrastructure. Their people are healthier than ones here as well.

  368. Abuse Enemy Combatant Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barbara and Jenna to Gitmo. The wonderful part is that it would be 100% legal, and I wouldn't ever have to justify it. "They're terrorists" is all it takes!

  369. drivel: Re:very disapointing answers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few things.

    1) we're not fighting two wars. we're not fighting any wars currently. if you want to call what's going on in iraq and afghanistan wars then you haven't studied what real wars look like in the modern era.
    2) afghanistan is mostly a stalemate. the 'bad guys' aren't really doing anything. neither are the 'good guys'. over the border in pakistan they've essentially moved in to enjoy the protection of what has always been a 'lawless'/tribal controlled area. afghanistan has been denied to AQ as an open air bazarre for recruiting, training, etc. that makes it a win in my book. maybe you're in the crowd that thinks we should have done a soviet style 10 year long massive boots on the ground big time loss in afghanistan. that worked really well for them.
    3) read anything about iraq in the last 8 months? im not sure what your idea of losing or winning looks like but when areas that were once big time hang outs for the other side are now quiet and ready to be turned over to the local government while many of the local tribal leaders have publicly joined sides with the US against AQ in their areas (and this trend continues) doesn't sound like losing to me. but i'm obviously a brainwashed pnac neo-con who doesn't think dailykos and DU are news sources so ymmv.

    im not sure why i chose to respond to your post since you're just doing the standard uninformed drivel rant but there it is.

    the star trek engineering solutions show the positive nature of people. without people thinking big about the impossible all we'd ever do is spend our time moping about this or that very temporary problem as if it was the most important thing going on. fortuntely the country still has enough positive thinkers to more than counter the mindless negativity shipped out in bulk from a certain loud but minority segment of the population.

  370. I would start with... by PresRob · · Score: 1

    1. Building up the sea wall around New Orleans. There is no greater crime than to leave a city in ruins. 2. Start a program to rebuild smaller businesses and homes in N.O. 3. Arrest Bush, Cheney and cronies for war crimes, profiteering, and high crimes and misdemeanors. 4. Govt. Seizure of Haliburton and KBR 5. Govt. Seizure of Bush and Cheney properties. 6. Set up a Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan with a multinational Islamic force to replace us to stablize the region. 7. Apologize to the world and start anew. No being the world's Policeman. Try to be a better neighbor with advice and medical aid. 8. Restructure FEMA as a supply resource for the National Guard. 9. Remove the IRS and move to a luxury tax. The more useless crap you buy the more tax you pay. 10. Allow gays in the military. It worked for Greeks, Spartans and Jannassaries. If someone is willing to fight for their county, they should be able to sleep with whoever they want. 11. Start charging networks for use of the airwaves as long as they program the news to bring in revenue. Until the news stops being entertainment, they should pay the people for not reporting what is important. 12. Put 10% of our current military budget into NASA. 13. Put 10% of our current Military budget into renewable energy. What better way to fight the Middle East than to bring renewable energy to the world and devalue oil? 14. Balance our budget and set up a guildline to reduce spending each year. 15. Rebuild the EPA with a mandate to get to a national zero carbon footprint and to offer advice/technology to other countries to do the same. 16. Have the SEC review corporate accounting practices to minimize Enron scandals. 17. Learn at least 5 more languages so I can deal with other countries as an equal and relay less on translators.

  371. My first thing to do.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send an invite to all Bush family and current and past corrupt congresscritters to a big party on the Bikini Atoll in the pacific ocean, reprogram 7 ICBM's to target that location, when they arrive nuke them to fucking hell, televise it worldwide after and say, " this is what you get for destroying America, Any of you hostile groups out there even think of doing anything to the USA and we will nuke your country off the planet. any bordering countries wanting to avoid collateral destruction need to get your asshole neighbors in check.

    The usa is the only superpower left, let's fucking act like one.

  372. Apply Agile Tenets to Government by MarkLarz · · Score: 1

    I could write forever on this topic. Here's one item: With citizens as the customer, I would try to apply agile (a software development methodology) tenets to government. For example, I would have a poll to determine the priority of requirements to be fulfilled by congress each month. I would hold congress accountable for fulfilling the requirements and reporting back to the citizens the status of each requirement each week. Bipartisan teams would be assigned to each requirement. Any conflict that can't be resolved by a team would come to me for the final decision (no appeals to my decisions - to pressure the teams to get the job done). Penalties would be incurred by teams failing to complete their tasks (e.g., cuts in privileges/pay). I could go on, but you get the idea.

  373. Simpe Energy Policy by mycal · · Score: 1

    This is my idea for a simple US Energy Policy that could really take the spikes out and equalize the fuel prices across the USA.

    1) Create a US standard blend of regular gas that is legal to use across the USA. Allow for other blends, but the US standard blend should have a minimum of oxygenator and should be a 87 octane blend.

    2) Let states opt out, but withhold there federal highway funds

    Thats it, it doesn't get any simpler than that. So next time a refinery gets shut down in your area and the next state over has a surplus, go ahead and import it into your state and use it. No more of this 20 blends of fuel for the country.

  374. Attention Moderators! by Torodung · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thank you for giving up your shot at the presidency to moderate this discussion. ;^)

    --
    Toro

  375. Passing the Buck by darklordx11 · · Score: 1

    Recognizing my own lack of real leadership, I would do exactly what I think Bush should do. Turn over the presidency to Barak Obama, who would do a much better job than I would.

    Of course in the case of Bush, he could turn it over to an actual leafy green bush and there would be improvement.

    (Which is worse, no leadership, or bad leadership?)

  376. changes in small things that are repeated by johnrpenner · · Score: 1


    changes in small things that are repeated bring a big long term gain.
    here is a set of small definite low-cost policies which could offer significant
    value for the improvement of the quality of life for citizens:

    - car-free tax break for those who use a bike or transit
        instead of car as their primary mode of transit.

    - gardening tax break for those who don't use lawn mowers.
          more, if they cultivate their own gardens instead of having a lawn.
          credits for those who break-up parking lots with trees clumps;
          hands off around rivers and watersheds.

    - free government requires free software; and public data storage
        requires open-formats. no proprietary formats in government period.

    - congress may only approve a budget if money spent for
        education exceeds amount spent for military.

    - voucher system for schools -- more integration of alternative
        systems such as waldorf and montessori into publicly funded schools.

    - no tax on the difference between square and top-round windows.
        self-performed home improvement is tax-deductable.

    - free-up use of wood pulp with renewable hemp production.

    - no more clear cutting; tree removed requires planting replacement.

    - free the music -- public funding of artists -- the ones who receive
        the money to be determined through peer-review of artistic merrit.

    - recognitions of merrit -- tax break may be given when
        a group in the community volunteers it in recognition
        of someone's outstanding service to a local community.

    - bike access corridors; setting up 'bike villages'
        in depleted old downtown areas, and 'road' dollars
        going to covered bike-lanes for winter along useful corridors;
        require accomodation for bikes in planning malls and suburbs.

    - chess taught as a standard subject in schools.

    - more funding for the arts -- patronage mediated by
        peer-review of funding. funded artists can be called upon
        at times to be used in public classrooms for education of
        the young by the best in the field.

    - insofar as architects and artists get publiclly funded, they
        may at times be called in for consultation to determine the
        direction of how to improve basic builders habits, and help
        in schools.

    - encouragement for more apprenticeships in construction and
        building-craft.

    - sun tzu's 'art of war' to be required reading for every soldier.
        a copy of steiner's 'philosphy of freedom' donated to every library.

  377. Re:None of the above by darjen · · Score: 1

    I guess you're free to believe what you want. I'm not convinced that the comments took place over a decade. TNR article itself only quoted a couple of them. I'm not convinced that he is racist, and his many public statements during 10 terms of public service seem to confirm this. Like I said, he did take responsibility for it and publicly repudiated those views. You really think the media isn't mentioning this stuff? You really must not be paying attention. It's one thing to castigate someone over a mistake. It's another to repeatedly drag someone over the coals after they acknowledged their error.

  378. What I'd Do.... by menace3society · · Score: 1

    1) Round up all the neo-nazis and put them in concentration camps, just for the sake of irony.
    2) Fire three-fourths of the FCC: leave enough people to regulate broadcast frequencies and harmful interference and send the rest of the people packing. Then tell Congress that the FCC doesn't have enough manpower to do everything they want it to, so either repeal content-control laws, or give it form money. If they supply the funding, divert it elsewhere in an "emergency."
    3) Veto all pork. *All* of it.
    4) Repeal/decline-to-renew No Child Left Behind.
    5) Give the Iraqis nice card that says, "A republic if you can keep it" and pull out all our troops.
    6) Disband the paramilitary wing of the directorate of operations of the CIA. It only exists to wage war without uniformed military personnel.
    7) Work to end subsidies for corn-derived ethanol, and promote subsidies for more efficient sources of renewable energy.
    8) Give the EPA some teeth. And maybe shotguns.
    9) Research efficient alternatives to the current healthcare, which may involve limiting medical malpractice awards.
    10) Appoint a bisexual sorority as First Ladies and throw lots of parties.

  379. Re:FIx health care and stop CEO's form makeing big by maxume · · Score: 1

    The Oregon trail?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  380. My agenda would be by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Domestic and Economic areas:

    I: Economic:
    A: Renew tax credits for alternative energy development.
    B: Create new form of tax credit for energy conservation and distributed development (methane digestors at dairy farms and the like)
    C: Work with industry on reducing scope of patents in IT-related fields.
    D: Push for reform of copyright law.

    II: Criminal Justice
    A: Create a grading system for prisons based on recitivism rates.
    B: Create a task force to study effects of sentensing lengths on recitivism rates.
    C: Work with states to lower recitivism rates by adopting optimal sentensing lengths based on above studies.

    III: Domestic Security and Civil Liberties
    A: Create open public forums on issues relating to domestic security. Open up general discussions on abstract security issues relating to aircraft, airports, infrastructure, and federal buildings to the public.
    B: Undertake a complete survey of hydroelectric dams in this country for vulnerabilities to attack. Scenarios would include small and large amounts fo conventional low and high explosives, and also thermobaric attack profiles.
    C: Undertake a study of the impact on civil liberties of various post-9/11 measures.
    D: Work to create a rationed guest worker program to undermine illegal immigration.
    E: Work on a controlled legalization of Marijuana to undermine drug cartels which have been ammassing enough firepower to challenge the Mexican Army.
    1) Import/export of Cannibis would be prohibited, except as allowed by treaty.
    F: Work towards a streamlined procedure for deporting illegal immigrants with dependant American citizen children. The children would be given US passports in the process of deportation. The passports might be applied for and then distributed through local consulates, or might be distributed prior to deportation.

    Foreign Policy:

    I: Iraq
    A: Make it *clear* that our continued involvement in Iraq requires certain rules enforced by the Iraqi government including no official or unofficial use of any militia units by any government agencies.
    B: Revoke all contracts with external security firms in Iraq until further notice.
    C: Make it *clear* that our continued involvement in Iraq will not exceed our welcome by the duly elected Iraqi government.
    D: Seek help from The Arab League and the European Union for peacekeeping operations in Iraq under EU and AL flags.

    II: Afghanistan
    A: Undertake a review of Afghanistan's Constitution and its impact on governability of the country. Provide advice on this matter to that government in the form of a declassified report.
    B: Request permission from Pakistan's government to pursue insurgants across the border.

    III: Israel/Iran/Syria
    A: Continue Bush's policy of delaying/obstructing delivery of aid when Israel is not playing well with the Palestinians.
    B: Continue pushing for a Palestinian State.
    C: Declare that we stand for defending the Green Line in Israel. We have no position on attacks against IDF targets outside the Green Line.
    D: State to Iran and Syria that we are prepared to give a security guarantee provided that:
    1) all nuclear weapons programs are verifiably halted
    2) all enrichment for fissile materials is halted
    3) they help a stable Iraqi government emerge

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  381. Pragmatics... by 7Prime · · Score: 1

    First of all, I would try and assemble a team of advisors that stem from the top fields in all areas relating to various issues at hand. Not simply rock stars within the political arena, but respected individuals within their own area of expertise. For instance, for education, call on some of the top individuals from the childhood development field (including early-childhood development field, which is often left out) and give them very direct access into the decision making process. That's one thing I think Bill Clinton did very well, and you hear a lot of praise of him from within many areas of expertise for including them.

    Secondly, on the international fronts, do everything to strengthen connections with our allies and make it clear that we're, once again, a team player willing to work in a multi-latteral direction. Europe, East Asia, and South America are making great leaps and strides in ecconomics, technology, education, and civil rights, and we would be silly to continue our current "holier than thow" attitude, even if we're at odds with some of the current trends (such as aspects of Chinese goverance).

    Lastly, I want to create a clear set of long-term benchmarks to try and work toward, for what our nation should look like 10 years down the line, 25 years, 50 years, etc. And have this open to public display. This would include various technological advancements, civil rights achievenements, and international relations prosectives. I want to give the country a clear vision of what our future could look like, and work toward that, even if not all the goals are probable.

    And ONE very specific goal: campaign finance reform, probably the most important achievement for the long term success of our political body.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
  382. Shareholders by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    I'd sell the US off and give the money to the shareholders.

  383. For anyone who cared to read this far, my platform by DrEasy · · Score: 1

    - a slow withdrawal from Iraq, with a transition to a fully UN-operated phase, like they did in Bosnia. A quick withdrawal would lead to a blood-bath, with even more animosity toward the US.

    - BIG emphasis on education. More spending, more quality control. Every student who finishes high-school has to pass a tough standard test.

    - real separation of church and state.

    - universal health-care, partially financed by taxing private health-care. If the rich want better health care, fine, but they have to pay through the nose for it and in the process they help improve the state of public health care. Everyone wins!

    - end lobbies.

    - actually enforce anti-monopoly laws.

    - the big project for the decade: the environment. Heavy investment in eco-friendly research and technologies, making the US the world leader. Sign Kyoto and actually go beyond simply reaching the objectives. Tax imports on polluting goods to support this. Tax big polluters.

    - a one-year civil service for all who come out of high-school and for new immigrants. The former get some maturity and time to reflect on what they want to become, immersion in the country and improved language skills for the latter. And the society at large benefits. Again, everyone wins!

    - for anything else that requires funding: the Entertainment Tax. Subsidize cultural production and preservation while taxing its consumption. This should encourage people to become active participants in the cultural life of the country instead of passive couch-potatoes.

    Vote DrEasy!

    --
    "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
  384. Corporation liability by vorpal22 · · Score: 1

    I agree with many of the suggestions here (drug legalization, end the war on terrorism, etc), but one thing that I would *really* like to see is for highly increased liability for corporations. The entire notion of a "corporation" abused existing law to remove liability from the members of the company and instead have the company treated as an individual under the eyes of the law. This isn't happening, IMO. When a pharmaceutical corporation screws up (think Vioxx), what happens? They get a financial slap on the wrist. If I accidentally killed some people, what would happen? I would certainly go to jail for manslaughter, and it's very unlikely I'd be able to buy my way out without serving some time first. How are we, then, in the eyes of the law, considered equivalent as individuals? If companies want to be corporations, treat them as such: if they commit a crime, give them "jail" time and cease their operations to make them incur severe financial loss, just as I would be unable to work in prison. Maybe then we can abolish this absolutely stupid concept by making it entirely unappealing and go back to the way things used to be before this nonsense started.

  385. Soda Fountain by Shadowin · · Score: 1

    As president, I promise to put a soda fountain in the school cafeteria!

  386. In my inauguration speech... by Dracos · · Score: 1

    I would tell Congress that I will veto every bill that comes across my desk until bills covering these issues are passed:

    • A constitutional amendment imposing Congressional term limits: 2 terms in the Senate, 4 terms in the House
    • Abolishment of corporate personhood
    • Eliminate Corporate lobbying, period
    • Make election day a national holiday, electronic voting illegal, and election tampering an act of treason
    • Restoration of Habeas corpus

    Then I would leave the podium and start making phone calls: to begin the process of letting Iraq settle into a more natural state of 3 separate nations, and how to get our troops home.

  387. Oxymoronism by glimmy · · Score: 1

    I would begin to execute my masterfully not-thought-through plan: The Libertarian Police State.

  388. Easy by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    Happy to hear much of my wish list echoed by others, such as ending corporate personhood, banning lobbying, getting out of Iraq, universal healthcare, etc.

    Here are others I haven't seen yet:

    1. Comprehensive energy strategy to get off fossil fuels by 2015. Accomplished with mix of solar, wind, tidal, biomass, biodiesel, nuclear. Result: the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on fossil fuels will be reinvested in this country instead of flowing to suspect regimes who fund our enemies. Also, it will help avert catastrophic climate change.

    2. National transportation strategy that builds up high-speed rail (a-la bullet train or TGV) as a way to alleviate air travel congestion and lower our national carbon footprint. Strongly encourage urban areas with sufficient population density to prioritize mass transit, walking, and cycling. (meshes with energy and climate strategy)

    3. Start dealing with China. They are our largest strategic challenge in the 21st century, and they're gunning for us with everything they've got. If we don't get that foreign policy question right, it's world-ending.

    4. Dissolve the Department of Homeland Security and forever and for all time ban the word "Homeland" in connection with the United States of America. Official description will be the tried-and-true, "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave."

    5. Add Constitutional amendment guaranteeing right to privacy.

    6. Revise Federal Student Loan program to require all universities work to place 90% or greater of their graduates in jobs, or lose eligibility.

    7. Apollo-like program to cure cancer, heart disease, and other perennial ills. Then give the cures to the world, for free. Let's contribute something lasting and positive as a civilization to the world. Also, it would be about the best apology we could make for Bush.

    8. Push for universal work elegibility for citizens of all U.N. signatory countries. If global capital is able to move about the world freely, then labor (you, me, and everyone who works) should be able to move about just as freely. Outsourcing, immigration, unemployment, and nationalistic bigotry all are solved or at least dramatically alleviated in one stroke.

    9. International effort to colonize Mars and develop space travel sufficient to take us to other stars.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  389. Sure... have I got some ideas! by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    1. Reduce the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan substantially. I don't see a total pullout, not for awhile. The war ENDED (gosh people are stupid) when Hussein and his army were defeated (that shouldn't need saying, but since slashdot posters seem to not understand... I'll post it). Invade Mexico. Lots of people in the USA might want to go back and visit their families. 2. Revisit the supposed universal outcry of America that we cannot allow another terrorist attack of the magnitude of "911". The reason: people seem to be whining anc complaining about their privacy and freedoms being infringed upon. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have ASKED for it. If people still want to be "safe", mandate that everyone HAS to buy a gun (extra incentives for family purchases or multiple purchases). That'll be interesting... 3. Immigration. No matter how you look at this one, it's a mess. A BIG MESS. It's weird, we could offer every illegal immigrant in the USA $1000 to file to become legal AND THEY WILL NOT TAKE the offer. Laziness? Apathy? Not sure. Cheapest way to get them back to their country? Free tickets to see Hannah Montana Live in Mexico! 4. Taxes. Flat tax makes sense. With regards to the poverty line.... if we don't conquer Mexico.... we could setup an approved foreign exchange program. Mexico takes one of our deadbeats in exchange for one of their (usually) hard working and honest "illegals". 5. Health care... it's not as broken as people say it is. People are pretty blind (maybe free eye exams for folks). Few people means more protection of the onzone.... why are people whining about this one? 6. Push for total reform of the patent system. Patents as they are now will apply only to individuals. Patents issued with the support of a company or patents acquired by a company from individuals will be subject to some kind of scaling formular based on the size and revenue of the company. Patents were designed to protect the little guy, not feed our court system with litigation. Take all of Microsoft's patents away (that's just to punish them for Vista). 7. Eliminate the DMCA, and establish a true Fair Use law. Bring innovation back to the USA that can include cryptography. Emphasize the legalities of pirating and sharing copyrighted information and make the punishments harsh (perhaps sending offenders to Mexico?). Round up the millions and millions of kids in the USA that do not believe that illegally sharing media is a crime and give them all a really, really, REALLY big spanking. And poke their parents in the eye.... do it hard. 8. Push for an ammendment to the Constitution to emphasize what is already there... that people matter and that killing them when unborn is just plain WRONG. However, if the people do want to continue the practice, alter the rules so that you cannot terminate the life until they are 3 years old. That way, if the kid is just a pain... you know what to do. I figure after 3 years, the kid might become viable and survive somehow if left on its own. So 3 years seems to be reasonable. We could come up with creative ways to carry out the abortions. Lots of spare parts, one less carbon footprint etc, etc,... health nuts and environmentalists will love it! 9. End the purchasing of "Carbon Credits". This has to be the stupidest thing ever created. It allows the extremely wealthy to blast people for polluting yet allows them to make their heinous deeds... well... "correct". Hypocrisy at its finest. If America wants to keep the Carbon Credit around (hey, I listen to the people), we should make the credits have value and have currency-like bill made of biodegradeble materials... and oh.. they should have a picture of Al Gore on them. Make Carbon Credits taxable using REAL currency :) 10. Campaign finance reform... well... let's just end the usage of money at all on campaigns. That's right, not even YOUR own money. Candidates need to become homeless during their campaigns. Vote for the one you want to survive. The rest have to spend the next 4 years in Mexico. Hire Simon to judge the election.

  390. My top ten by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    1. Reduce the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan substantially. I don't see a total pullout, not for awhile. The war ENDED (gosh people are stupid) when Hussein and his army were defeated (that shouldn't need saying, but since slashdot posters seem to not understand... I'll post it). Invade Mexico. Lots of people in the USA might want to go back and visit their families.

    2. Revisit the supposed universal outcry of America that we cannot allow another terrorist attack of the magnitude of "911". The reason: people seem to be whining anc complaining about their privacy and freedoms being infringed upon. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have ASKED for it. If people still want to be "safe", mandate that everyone HAS to buy a gun (extra incentives for family purchases or multiple purchases). That'll be interesting...

    3. Immigration. No matter how you look at this one, it's a mess. A BIG MESS. It's weird, we could offer every illegal immigrant in the USA $1000 to file to become legal AND THEY WILL NOT TAKE the offer. Laziness? Apathy? Not sure. Cheapest way to get them back to their country? Free tickets to see Hannah Montana Live in Mexico!

    4. Taxes. Flat tax makes sense. With regards to the poverty line.... if we don't conquer Mexico.... we could setup an approved foreign exchange program. Mexico takes one of our deadbeats in exchange for one of their (usually) hard working and honest "illegals".

    5. Health care... it's not as broken as people say it is. People are pretty blind (maybe free eye exams for folks). Few people means more protection of the onzone.... why are people whining about this one?

    6. Push for total reform of the patent system. Patents as they are now will apply only to individuals. Patents issued with the support of a company or patents acquired by a company from individuals will be subject to some kind of scaling formular based on the size and revenue of the company. Patents were designed to protect the little guy, not feed our court system with litigation. Take all of Microsoft's patents away (that's just to punish them for Vista).

    7. Eliminate the DMCA, and establish a true Fair Use law. Bring innovation back to the USA that can include cryptography. Emphasize the legalities of pirating and sharing copyrighted information and make the punishments harsh (perhaps sending offenders to Mexico?). Round up the millions and millions of kids in the USA that do not believe that illegally sharing media is a crime and give them all a really, really, REALLY big spanking. And poke their parents in the eye.... do it hard.

    8. Push for an ammendment to the Constitution to emphasize what is already there... that people matter and that killing them when unborn is just plain WRONG. However, if the people do want to continue the practice, alter the rules so that you cannot terminate the life until they are 3 years old. That way, if the kid is just a pain... you know what to do. I figure after 3 years, the kid might become viable and survive somehow if left on its own. So 3 years seems to be reasonable. We could come up with creative ways to carry out the abortions. Lots of spare parts, one less carbon footprint etc, etc,... health nuts and environmentalists will love it!

    9. End the purchasing of "Carbon Credits". This has to be the stupidest thing ever created. It allows the extremely wealthy to blast people for polluting yet allows them to make their heinous deeds... well... "correct". Hypocrisy at its finest. If America wants to keep the Carbon Credit around (hey, I listen to the people), we should make the credits have value and have currency-like bill made of biodegradeble materials... and oh.. they should have a picture of Al Gore on them. Make Carbon Credits taxable using REAL currency :)

    10. Campaign finance reform... well... let's just end the usage of money at all on campaigns. That's right, not even YOUR own money. Candidates need to become homeless during their campaigns. Vote for the one you want to survive. The rest have to spend the next 4 years in Mexico. Hire Simon to judge the election.

    11. Put an end to HTML postings on Slashdot :)

  391. Okay, point taken. by jhantin · · Score: 1

    People don't understand simple math.. . . . They STILL BUY CRAP!!!

    Point taken. I wasn't considering the prevalence of irrational behavior among high risk borrowers.

    Free markets are great, and black markets WILL intervene to fill in the gaps..

    So if black markets will intervene to fill in the gaps, why not capture that segment in a legitimate market? While the result is essentially the personal lending equivalent of junk bonds, it's probably better from a harm reduction standpoint to let speculators fund that market rather than someone who will send the goon squad around to politely discuss payment options.

    Credit cards that specifically target high risk people, giving them teaser rates that will jump at the first late payment. This sort of thing CAN be regulated easily and still support a relatively free market.

    Fair enough. Teaser rates seem to lead to either the lender taking advantage of an unwary borrower or a smart borrower taking advantage of the lender, neither of which would seem to help stability.

    --
    ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
  392. orders for the next president, whoever that is by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1
    The theme I'd go for is efficiency. Anything that motivates people to do the right things, but doesn't force them, and cuts down on unnecessary complexity in our lives.
    1. Great tax tradeoff. Add 1 item to the income tax form: "Did you make $50000 or less this year? If yes, you owe $0 in tax, sign here, and do not fill out anything else in this form." To pay for this, I'd stick a big tax on gas, perhaps $1 per gallon. Would take some work to figure out the right numbers to get the same revenue as before. Like, could we make it $60K with just a $0.75 gas tax? And I'd relish the hate I'd get from tax software companies.
    2. With that nice gas tax in place, there'd be no need for this CAFE stuff. I'd repeal it all, and let the consumers roast any auto manufacturer foolish enough to try to peddle gas guzzlers.
    3. Buy out all these private toll roads. Use Eminent Domain if necessary. Tolls waste a lot of money to pay for all the overhead of collecting them.
    4. Science! Research has suffered mightily under the current administration. Needs a big infusion of cash. Let's go to Mars, use stem cells, cure cancer, improve power generation, make corruption more difficult to get away with and less desirable to try, build more particle accelerators, telescopes, supercomputers, labs, and research centers.
    5. On a related note, we need to get serious about Global Warming. A big gas tax is a start. But there is so much more to be done. How about making it possible to walk around American cities? More mass transit? And change some attitudes. Only petty criminals and poverty stricken deadbeats walk around or hitch rides in America, and in most places, if you're walking, that's what everyone driving by thinks you are. Most American cities are absolutely miserable places to try to walk. Would get us all more exercise, lose weight, and save on emissions all at once.
    6. Reform or abolish intellectual property laws. At the very least, kill the DMCA and the patenting of software.
    7. Fix the health care system. Seems to me the current system works on a literal passing of bucks. Currently, hospitals and doctors try to charge outrageously high prices for their services. Claim they have to pay for all those deadbeats who need care but can't afford it. They're no better than the fabled auto mechanic who lures you to their establishment with some $20 "oil change" coupon and then tries to tell you your car needs a complete engine and transmission overhaul, and a new paint job too, for more money than the car is worth. Must have insurance batting for you to get the prices down. Then you have to get a lawyer to sue the insurance company when they turn around and far from passing those savings on to you, try to deny your claims. All this is very wasteful. The incentives are all wrong.
    8. Iraq. Should never have gone there in the first place, and for a very simple practical reason. We were already involved in Afghanistan. Germany dreaded the "two front war" for very good reasons. One other big reason: it's been a gigantic expense. However, that's water under the bridge, and the question is, what now? It really comes down to 2 choices: get out, but not too hastily, just in the way that will be the least expense to us. Or stay and govern for another 5 years. I lean towards sticking around. Maybe it is possible to withdraw the military but not too far so we can come rushing back in if necessary, and have some people stay to do social works, which would be far less expensive than paying for 100,000 soldiers to be on duty. Set up schools, build some infrastructure. It took 5 to 10 years to settle Germany and Japan down after WWII, and Iraq is no economic power like they were and are again. I feel though that the example we could have been setting has been seriously undermined by our own corporate citizens and the blatant corruption they have engaged in.
    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  393. Torture and Guantanamo by akratic · · Score: 1

    1) Grant an amnesty to civilian or military interrogators who prior to January 20, 2009 used "enhanced interrogation techniques" which they reasonably, if falsely, believed to be legal.

    2) Order the declassification and publication of the classified portion of the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation.

    3) If waterboarding is authorized in the classified portion of the Field Manual, de-authorize it.

    4) Announce that if any U.S. military or civilian interrogator uses a harsh interrogation technique not authorized in the Field Manual, that interrogator will be prosecuted. If the prosecution cannot be carried out in American courts for lack of jurisdiction, the U.S. Government will actively cooperate with a foreign government's prosecution of the offense.

    5) Select an Attorney General who pledges to pursue such cases aggressively. Order military prosecutors to pursue such cases aggressively.

    6) Order the military to stop holding detainees as "unlawful combatants" at Guantanomo or other prisons. Anyone currently held as an "unlawful combatant" must be either designated as a prisoner of war, transferred to civilian custody for prosecution in U.S. or foreign courts, or released.

  394. Consumerism by amohat · · Score: 1

    Ban Mail-in Rebates.

    Yes, make them illegal. The price you post is the price you sell.

    I know all the reasons behind rebates. Fuck them all, and fuck anyone who is down with them.

  395. NBC clause not modified by 14th amendment by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

    Knowing the sort of people who work in this industry, I am damn proud of the fact that I am among the very few who are constitutionally eligible to serve.

    --
    Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  396. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by amohat · · Score: 1

    haha, too bad there's no +1 asshole comment, but funny

  397. Deep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but "they call them fingers, but I've never seen them fing ... oh, wait, there they go" is not my idea of "deep" thought.

  398. Presidents need a willing congress to do much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The President has very little to do with oil prices.
    The President can only start an undeclared war without congress.

    I'd:
    1. push for the Fair Tax - make the USA a tax haven in the world.
    2. push for laws that allow clear competition in health care - mandatory price lists posted for all services
    3. push for social security privatization
    4. push for school competition. parental choice with money following the student where ever they chose
    5. push for term limits of all federal offices that aren't "for life"
    6. push for Campaign Contribution reform. If you can't legally vote in an election, then you can't provide money in any form to the people running.
      • Special Interest Groups - nope, unless you like in the election area.
      • National Parties - nope.
      • Corporations - nope, NEVER
      • Illegal Aliens - nope.
      • Dead People - nope.
      • Registered Citizens residing in the county, city, and/or state for the election? YES!

    7. Illegal immigration - secure the border, make selling or renting a place to live illegal with $50k per incident fines. Fine any company $50k per incident for employing illegals -$200k for a second offense, higher for any more offenses. Create a hotline/website for reporting illegal aliens. People who report such that illegals are found are given half the fine. Make not acting on reports a termination offense for state and federal employees. Cut off all aid to countries that don't take effective measures to prevent their people from coming to the USA illegally.
    8. push for tit-4-tat import/export laws. Similar barriers for their imports as for our exports.
    9. throw out the united nations. Let them find a new home - i suggest Iran.
    10. Tort reform - loser pays; protection of some kind against large companies suing the little guy out of business.
    11. push for peace world-wide; bomb the hell out of any country that elects to fight rather than work towards peaceful solutions to conflicts. Kill them all, all their families so nobody is left to want to kill us or force us to change our existing (or lack of) religious beliefs.

    That's probably enough for my first 100 days.
  399. It's a long list by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

    Close all military bases outside the USA. Pull all troops out of all countries.

    Cut military spending to no more than 200 Billion/year. Do not adjust this figure for inflation.

    Stop the war on drugs.

    Decriminalise ALL drugs (Plus release the drug USER convicts from jail)

    Hike income tax

    Increase NASA's Budget to 200 Billion a year. Change their charter to exploration, research and manned missions ONLY. Commission Mars orbiting "Castles", and put 100+ people on Mars permanently. Commission a Europa life seeking mission with Cryobot. Send at least 2 rovers to Titan.

    Fund EMC^2 to 500 Million dollars funding to produce Fusion Reactor prototype

    Destroy the Ballistic Missile Defense System, and cancel all such future projects.
    Commission 2 Billion dollars of research (in Year 1) for Beamed Laser Launching techniques, and look at space-based mirrors to make ultimate strike weapon (add another 10 or 20 missions to this project as it matures. Use it for laser launching of solar sailed craft to Proxima Centauri etc)

    Allocate 10 Billion to developing the technologies required to build a space elevator.

    Engage Russia and China in Military talks: destroy all but a couple of hundreds nukes.

    Cancel all F22 and B2 orders.

    Offer Boeing incentives to destroy Airbus.

    Reduce to power of the executive branch. Hand that power back to congress.

    Reinstate Habeas Corpus. Close Gitmo. Release or try the prisoners there in federal court.

    Reinstate all freedoms stolen.

    Remove 95% of security checks at airports. Place two armed guards on each flight. Make cockpit doors unbreakable.

    Prosecute Bush, Cheney and co. for treason.

    Expel all professional Lobby groups and people from D.C. Change some laws.

    Ban electronic voting without a paper trail. Open source it all.

    Ban black highlighters.

    Close the CIA. Comeup with something better.

    Cut Israel loose.

    Begin extracting Oil shale in Colorado at $30 a barrel.

    Finish Yucca Mountain.

    Allocate 500 Billion over 10 years for infrastructure maintenance and repairs in the USA.

    Mandate high gas mileages on all new cars phased in over 5 years.

    Cancel just about every entitlement program there is, to fund nationalised health product.

    Destroy the culture of litigation; adopt New Zealand-like process.

    Hold referendums of changes to the Constitution; first order of business is to add an amendment which prevents Congress from changing the consitution without a nation-wide referendum.

    That'll do for year 1...

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
  400. hmmm.... by MADCOWbeserk · · Score: 1

    I think I would sleep with two woman.... If I were president I think i could make that happen....

  401. fix the economy by maryjanecapri · · Score: 1

    i would create an income floor and ceiling. i would find the ideal numbers apply them so that no job would pay less than X and no job would pay more than Y. then allow companies to give incentives via vacations and such. say, for example, no job would pay less than $50,000 and no job would pay more than $100,000. and anyone that would dare say "i can't live on less than $100,000" should be ashamed of themselves.

    call it socialism, call it what you want - but it would go further to fix the economy than anything anyone else is offering up.

    --
    nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
  402. Very interesting .... but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather than specify specific budgets for each department, how about we vote on the overall percentage for each department and for larger programs. Then national priorities would fit within the amount of taxes for a given year. Annual changes could not be larger than 5% unless requested from inside the department and for less money. No deficit spending allowed - send anyone that does overspend to jail for 10 years for each $20K over.
    This would keep citizens with an idea of the overall national priorities since funding sets priorities.

    1) I bet NASA would get much more money 0.5% - more people think NASA is 10%
    2) I bet Social Security would get much less 49%
    3) I bet DoD would get about the same - 20%

  403. Space exploration, computer marriage by heroine · · Score: 1

    Invest in expanding the human population off of its overcrowded, resource depleated Earth. Create a new tax filing status for marriage to computers. Get rid of illegal immigrants.

  404. LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!!!! by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have yet to hear if Ron Paul is or is not repudiating the positions in the newsletter. Press Releases Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

    January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

    ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

    "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

    "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

    "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

    "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!!!! by Veinor · · Score: 1
      So he's not responsible enough to make sure that this newsletter didn't go out, but he's responsible enough to be president? Also, at least one of the newsletters went out with his signature on it, and another one appears to be copyright to "Ron Paul and Associates". Why hasn't he tried to get these taken down as being defamatory if they're not really his?

      Also, see this old issue of Reason, in which we see:

      Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. [...] In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
      Seems pretty incriminating to me
    2. Re:LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!!!! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      appears to be copyright to "Ron Paul and Associates". Why hasn't he tried to get these taken down as being defamatory if they're not really his? Do you know what the word "associates" means?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!!!! by Veinor · · Score: 1

      So basically, you're saying that he shouldn't be held responsible for what his associates did, and that it's not his fault? And you want this man to run a country?

    4. Re:LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!!!! by Veinor · · Score: 1

      In other words, these people have been publishing shit under his name for several years, and he didn't bother stopping them, and yet he's responsible enough to lead the country?

    5. Re:LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!!!! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      So basically, you're saying that he shouldn't be held responsible for what his associates did Basically, if he associated with people who turned out to be racist, and he's no longer associated with them, that doesn't mean that he is a racist.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_hominem_fallacy
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  405. First day by synonymous · · Score: 1

    Fire everybody. Open up all the buildings and relinquish all technologies. Inform the people that 'civilization' is short for hostage societies and that an alien species genetic manipulation is what inhabits the planet. Tell them that I love them and to take care out there.

    The chaos would be short and sweet.

  406. Put the money into life enlonging research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would put a lot of money into life enlonging research. Gen technology, stem cells, telomerase research, cancer research, nano technology... Everything that helps me live longer.

  407. Progressive and Conservative by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

    1. A National health care program which eliminates insurance companies and the positive feedback loop they create with prices. All hospitals and health care workers would be brought into the public sector but all suppliers for medications, medical equipment, and other health care commodities would be kept private through competitive bidding and foreign trade. I would propose a medical bill of rights that establishes complete health care as a right and creates a "Value Towards Rights" scheme for pharmaceutical patents. Essentially, this would say that technologies or intellectual properties that are very important towards maintaining and promoting the rights of the people will have very limited patents. This would cause pharmaceutical patents to default to a 5 year term. NIH and NSF grants will be available to subsidize research by private pharmaceutical firms given approval by committee.

    2. A complete end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops would be recalled and some would be sent to the border to bolster Border Patrol efforts in a non-military capacity. All other overseas military bases would be sold off to the host nation for whatever we can get for them and evacuated. All military exercises will be limited to areas near the United States. Displays of military power such as sending carrier battle groups to the coasts of foreign nation for the purposes of intimidating foreign governments will be expressly forbidden. This will be established by a proposed new Constitutional amendment which clarifies, in no uncertain terms, appropriate uses for the military. This would result in a radical reduction in military expenditures, eliminating nearly 90% of the Pentagon budget. I would propose legislation that would radically reduce and within 10 years eliminate our nuclear arsenal, conditional upon cooperation from other nuclear powers.

    3. The Federal Reserve board will come under direct review of the congress and a panel of economists as appointed by the states in order to establish a transparent monetary policy. All available monetary and economic data will be made public and open use. All shareholder information of the Federal Reserve Bank will be made public.

    4. I would propose a radical restructuring of the tax code, eliminating the income tax entirely for the bottom 85% of tax payers while implementing a progressive tax scheme for all tax payers above the 85% bracket. This would be supplemented by a limited federal sales tax of at least 5% which works to create downward pressure on consumption while encouraging savings and investment. This is a hybrid of the current progressive income tax and the proposed fair tax. The size of the IRS can be reduced in accordance with the fewer number of people that will actually need to file a return. Corporate income taxes will also be reduced significantly in order to attract domestic industry back into the country. Import tariffs will be used to help mediate trade imbalances and add to government revenues. A pay-as-you-go scheme will be mandated and a pay-as-you-go-plus-principle will be applied until the national debt falls to within 2-3% of GDP.

    5. I would propose a Universal College education program which provides federal assistance (in place of loans) to fund public universities to take on under-privileged students non-gratis and without the need to constantly apply for grants and costly student loans to supplement their living expenses. Students will be required to meet and maintain certain academic standards, but all students who meet these standards will have an opportunity to go to college. Private college loans will be limited to a 5% maximum interest rate which would not be assessed until after completion of an undergraduate degree or termination of student status at an accredited institution.

    6. We will turn back all imports from any nation that does not conform to basic tenants of worker rights and fair wages. As the world's largest consumer, we'll be in a good position to create positive change in this re

  408. Take advantage of the great perks by harry_dolan · · Score: 1

    I'd land on aircraft carriers a LOT.

  409. My List. by broody · · Score: 1

    * Veto every budget that does not include a surplus.
    * Veto every budget stealing from social security.
    * Adopt a standard answer of "No" to all new spending with detailed justification and review.
    * Impound pork spending in budget bills.
    * Declassify the most information in history.
    * Veto nearly every bill opposed by ACLU.
    * Pardon federal consensual crime offenders who have never committed violent crimes.
    * Do not enforce laws prohibiting "consensual crimes" at the federal level.
    * Bring home as many troops as possible.
    * Impound as much military aid as possible.
    * Reverse nearly every executive order I have read to date. Obviously the majority would have to stay.
    * End the stupid 3oz limit for airplanes.
    * Increase number of National parks in city and country on a massive scale.
    * End FDA regulation of absinthe.
    * D.C. voting rights advocacy.
    * End enforcement of laws tying funding to state laws, IE state's rights.
    * End C.I.A. intervention overseas.
    * Humble foreign policy, trade with all (not nukes, high tech, etc).
    * Pursue North American Union with Canada, like E.U.
    * Advocate public funding of elections.
    * Advocate single payer health care.
    * Advocate lower administrative cost tax system, be if fair tax or VAT.
    * Vigorous anti-trust investigations.

    --
    ~~ What's stopping you?
  410. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by pnewhook · · Score: 1

    You mean 'reparations' I assume? I didn't see any of that in the posted lyrics. Unless you mean the part about giving money to the ghettos, and I didn't take that to mean reparations but social programs which the poor areas of the US desparately need.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  411. Zealots and angry joes. by copponex · · Score: 1

    Alright. Bin Laden is a religious zealot, and unfortunately, also a well-funded, CIA trained terrorist. Now, by himself, he can't do that much damage. If you took him and plopped him in Brooklyn in 1992, he'd have a hell of a time recruiting local Muslims to his cause. Why? Because only angry joes follow zealots, and only if they have little other choice. Most angry joes are content to get a job at a local business, marry, have a few kids, and buy some ugly pants and move to Florida when they retire.

    But, take his physical security away, and install a military base near his house you start to have problems. Maybe he doesn't like having a gun pointed at him if he goes the wrong way at a checkpoint. Maybe some local servicemen get drunk and rape one of his neighbors (not because soldiers are evil, but because all people are sometimes evil.) Maybe he sees the limos of his oppressive government ride in and out of the embassy of the USA, where people claim to love freedom, but have put up with the oppressive government for decades because they are "friendly." He sees the money changing hands - oil for weapons - and doesn't have any of his own. Now you really start to have problems - way, way, way before a "smart" bomb misses it's target and kills his entire family.

    And what I love is that no one on any news network seems to get that Bin Laden's dream is absolutely coming true. He pulled off an unbelievable (some say impossible) terrorist act, killed thousands of people, and got the reaction he wanted. American flags flying over new American bases in the Middle East. Of course, he'll say he wants us out, but if we did leave, the only thing he could motivate the angry joes with is rhetoric, and they will look around and say, "There aren't any Americans here. Why aren't we complaining about our own government instead of some country across the world?" America is no longer that country across the world. We're the great Satan, and easily pigeonholed there because our military forces kill people all over the world, every hour of every day.

    Thus the real reason no country who has remained uninvolved in the middle east has been attacked by whatever buzzword they're using for terrorists these days. Terrorists don't hate freedom, they hate colonial powers, and that has been the case since the dawn of time. We, as Americans, choose to remain a colonial power at our own peril.

    1. Re:Zealots and angry joes. by ricegf · · Score: 1

      Alright. Bin Laden is a religious zealot, and unfortunately, also a well-funded, CIA trained terrorist.

      Here we agree.

      Terrorists don't hate freedom

      Here we don't. "Bin Laden believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world, and that all other ideologies - pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy - must be opposed" (emphasis added). Terrorist organizations have openly called for Muslims to kill anyone who opposes imposition of Islamic law (i.e., favors Western-style "freedom"), including civilians. "Probably the most controversial part of Bin Laden's ideology is that civilians, including women and children, can be killed in jihad." From Wikipedia.

      Our support for Israel and our involvement in the overthrown of the Afghan Taliban government have been great recruiting tools, but (I believe) were still very much in our best interest. Abandoning mutual support for our loyal friends and allies, and allowing a terrorist training camp to operate openly with government support, would be foolish invitations to more 9-11 style attacks.

      Pulling all allied troops back to national borders, which I think is what your post advocates, is pretty much the best way to ensure that the worldwide movement toward democracy and freedom is defeated by the movement for Islamist theocracies. I favor the former. As Ben Franklin said, either we hang together, or we'll hang (or whatever the Taliban's latest favorite method of execution for Muslims and non-Muslims alike may be) separately.

    2. Re:Zealots and angry joes. by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      Bin Laden believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world

      But this has NOTHING to do with Islam. Please realize that. Remember that Saddam, a very very non-religious individual, wrapped himself in Islam whenever he needed to rally the troops and/or attract allies in his neighbours.

      Bin Laden says lots of things, preaches lots about Islam. But Islam ("Peace") has the exact same religious fundamentals as both Christianity and Judaism. Jesus is a great Prophet in the religion, and "the Jesus rule" (love thy neighbour) is also the Golden Rule in Islam. As with most religions, the extremists/freaks attempt to redefine the religion in their own image...CNN/Fox/The American People have let the extremists bastardize the definition of Islam.

      Bin Laden is to Islam what a mafioso is to Catholicism. Rally around the church everyone, praise the lord...or we'll whack y'a!

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    3. Re:Zealots and angry joes. by ricegf · · Score: 1

      You've got the right spirit, but almost every one of your facts are wrong.

      • Remember that Saddam - Saddam has no more to do with this discussion than Hitler, patron of all Internet discussions. He wasn't even Shi'a (Bin Laden's demonination). Please stick to the point.
      • But Islam ("Peace") - No, not "Peace". 'The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God.' (Wikipedia).
      • Islam ... has the exact same religious fundamentals as both Christianity and Judaism - Only if you ignore the fundamentals. :-) Let's take a quick look.
        • Islam teaches that salvation is earned by adhering to the Five Pillars and performing good works; addresses every aspect of life (religious, social and political); and guarantees salvation only to those who die in Jihad (otherwise you're in or not as a result of the final judgement by Allah).
        • Christianity teaches that salvation is a free gift of God to all who believe; addresses primarily religious and social (but not political) belief; and offers "eternal security" (you can know if you'll go to heaven based on Biblical promises).
        • Judaism is the national religion of the Jewish people, based on principles and ethics embodied in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. It offers no consensus view of an afterlife at all.

        These three religions have Abraham and a moral world-view in common; only the fundamentals differ.
      • Bin Laden is to Islam what a mafioso is to Catholicism - Well... no again. "The Sicilian Cosa Nostra is a loose confederation of about one hundred Mafia groups, also called cosche or families, each of which claims sovereignty over a territory." Their interest is primarily financial and the protection of family members; Bin Laden's is primarily "cleansing the lands of Allah" from non-Muslim influence through individual and organized terrorism. Bin Laden considers the Afghanistan Taliban to have been the only legitimate government in Arabia; mafiosi recognize (but operate independently of) the legitimate government of Italy.
      • But this has NOTHING to do with Islam - Only to extent that the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity. (Hint: They certainly did, though ultimately both the later Crusades and the current Islamic Fatwahs come down to power struggles in the originating political organizations.)
      • As with most religions, the extremists/freaks attempt to redefine the religion in their own image... - I knew we'd find something on which to agree! :-)

      At no point did I say or even imply that Bin Laden was representative of mainstream Islam. He's obviously not. The original poster, however, was asserting his theoretical "presidential administration" would base foreign policy on the goal of not encouraging Bin Laden (implied) to knock down any more buildings. Bin Laden is a radical, with his power rooted firmly is the radical fringe of Shi'a Islam. And he and his ilk will not be satisfied until Sharia law is the law of the land in the USA. Appease them not, or regret will be yours.

  412. "What went wrong" by westlake · · Score: 1
    Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

    You destroy what you cannot build.

    The two colossi must once have been a truly awesome sight, visible for miles, with copper masks for faces and copper-covered hands. Vairocana's robes were painted red and Sakyamuni's blue. These towering, transcendental images were key symbols in the rise of Mahayana Buddhist teachings, which emphasized the ability of everyone, not just monks, to achieve enlightenment.
    The Buddhas were cut at immeasurable cost probably in the third and fifth centuries A.D. Why the Taliban are destroying Buddhas

    The Buddhas marked an oasis on the Silk Road.

    They were products of a society that was prosperous in trade, confident in its mastery of the arts and engineering, and whose core beliefs were strong and generous and subtle.

  413. Take the bullet or take the orders? by VShael · · Score: 1

    Assume the question implies that Congress won't cripple your decision making and that the global elite don't put a bullet in your brain, these are the top things I'd do.

    1) Revoke the rights of Corporations the make them the same as immortal persons.
    2) Change the voting system to break the 2 party deadlock. Perhaps proportional representation.
    3) Open source paper trail electronic voting.
    4) Reduce the salaries of the President, Senate and Congress, to be equal to average wage in their constituency. Expense accounts can be used, but overseen/audited etc...
    5) Halt all NEW military spending for a single year. Just one year. Take that 250 Billion and invest it in schools and hospitals.

    I'd love to recind the Patriot Act and a bunch of other bad laws too... but I'd settle for those 5 as a most excellent start.

  414. bring back the draft, with a twist by bigrespect · · Score: 1
    Here's an idea. I'd institute a military draft that works according to the following rules:
    1. Each family with someone of military age must enter a conscription lottery.
    2. The lottery is skewed according to (A) income tax bracket and (B) total assets. The higher the income and assets, the more likely that family's candidate will be selected.
    3. Run the lottery every year. Minimum service duration is two years, at least half of which must be in a combat-fighting position (i.e. not just an engineer or an administrative assistant for the brass).
    If we did this, what would happen to the willingness of the U.S. leadership to go to war? Moreover, would the government continue to put soldiers in crappy hospitals and fail to adequately support veterans with PTSD?

    Of course this idea is absurdly unrealistic and anti-egalitarian. The broader point here is that those in power should not be insulated from the consequences of their decisions, and that those who arguably derive the greatest material benefits from society should also endure their fair share of sacrifice. If I were president I would try to enact policies that encourage the powerful to accept more accountability not just for their own actions, but for the actions of a government over which they wield disproportionate influence.

  415. Re:As a more-or-less European looking across the p by CyclistOne · · Score: 1

    Thanks for some comments from a European perspective. We Americans don't listen to others' views of us enough. Your English is good enough, and, as you say, much better than my German (I wish I could speak and read your language).

  416. First thing I'd do by t000lish · · Score: 1

    Nuke the Whales.

  417. What I would do by jonwil · · Score: 1

    1.Bring all troops back from Iraq and let the various Iraqi factions (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds etc) sort out what goes on. As long as the fighting doesn't shift to a foriegn country or to foriegn assets (e.g. attacks on foriegn embassies), let them sort it out themselves

    2.Cease and desist all efforts by any federal agency to censor, monitor, examine, read, carry out surveillance on or otherwise spy on any person except when necessary in the investigation of a legitimate crime. This means border guards cannot look at files on your computer unless they have a warrant.

    3.Change the tax and other rules surrounding health insurance so that anyone who wants to can leave the company supplied medical plan and find their own health insurance without loosing tax benefits. Easy solution is to make all health insurance costs up to tax deductible.

    Such a move (along with possible reforms to the laws governing health insurance companies) would encourage insurance companies compete for your business.

    4.Get rid of subsidies provided to the oil companies, coal miners and gas producers. Remove the loopholes in current tax law that allow SUVs and pickups to be classified as "trucks" for safety, fuel economy and emissions purposes.

    5.Encourage the construction of new nuclear reactors built using designs such as pebble bed and breeder that are less likely to meltdown and/or extract more total energy from the nuclear fuel. Further to this, get rid of all restrictions on reprocessing of fuel from nuclear reactors.

    6.Completely get rid of the rules that classify model rockets, model rocket engines and model rocket fuel (including black powder and Ammonium Perclorate Composite Propellant) as explosives

    7.Remove ALL restrictions on the production, use, import and export of cryptography except those that are in place as part of general export restrictions (i.e. embargoes on North Korea etc).

    8.Rework farm subsidies that are linked to specific commodities. Make it possible for farmers to switch to production of anything from corn to catfish to cows to clams without loosing their subsidies.

    9.Remove all restrictions on the growing of hemp for use as fiber, bio-fuel or whatever else. Also, make medicinal use of marijuana legal but ONLY if the marijuana is grown commercially and processed by a drug company and prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition. (i.e. regulate it in the same way as the growth and use of opium for morphine is regulated)

    10.Take money away from the military (since they aren't fighting in so many wars all the time, they dont need as much money) and give it to science organizations like NASA and the various particle physics groups. This includes funding such highly usefull but expensive experiments as the Centrifuge module for the international space station.

    Also, remove all funding from tokamak fusion research and devote it to research into other forms of energy production (all the boffins I have seen articles from say that tokamaks are not the answer for nuclear fusion)

    11.Invest money in any energy system (bio-fuel, solar power, wind power, water power, geothermal or whatever else) that can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. This includes any alternatives to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine. Encourage car makers to produce more fuel efficient cars and use subsidies to encourage consumers to buy these cars.

    12.Increase regulation of the home lending market with new requirements mandating that mortgage lenders can only lend to people if those people can demonstrate the ability to pay back the loan. Further to this, provide assistance to those who are already stuck so that they dont loose their house.

    13.Fund fiber to every home where it is practical to get fiber to. Fund something else (e.g. wireless, sattelite) to all those places where fiber cant efficiently reach (running fiber out to a homestead on a 6000 acre cattle ranch doesn't make sense). Allow any ISP to offer services (including voice, data

  418. Fix...Everything. by beowulfvii · · Score: 1

    First I would enact an education bill that reorganizes the system and makes teachers immune to federal income tax. Second comes health, with profiteering insurers being held liable for what happens to those who cannot afford their rates. Third comes immigration; I would open the path to getting work visas and citizenship, but strengthen requirements for command of the English language and knowledge of U.S. laws and customs. Lastly I would change the presidency to a single five-year term, with the vice presidency becoming a separate electoral entity.

  419. Ron Paul by MagicMerlin · · Score: 1

    I would pick Ron Paul as my vice president, and resign.

  420. I'm impressed - congratulations! by Quila · · Score: 1

    Your post is the first one I've seen that appears to come from someone who didn't sleep through his government class.

    You actually stated only things that are within the president's constitutional powers or that he can simply "advocate."

    I don't agree with all of your points, such as a North American Union, but you at least know what you're talking about.

    1. Re:I'm impressed - congratulations! by broody · · Score: 1

      Thanks. (:

      If only I could type "without" instead of "with". (;

      My own special typo:
      Adopt a standard answer of "No" to all new spending with detailed justification and review

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
  421. El Presidente by Fire_Elemental · · Score: 1

    First I would cut funding to all of the time/money sink-holes like the Mars and Moon missions as well as Iraq. Then I would, of course, leave Iraq because it's obviously a waste of time and I'd have better things to do. Next I would throw a bunch of money into building green power and as a result, making the old dirty plants obsolete. Then I would throw some more money into the CO2 -> fuel technologies, and then build lots of those. As a result I will have removed most of the oil dependencies and the country would now be carbon-neutral. Next I pump a certain percentage of the fuel the country was producing and pump it down the empty oil wells. As a result I will have made the country carbon... negative? Next I would hire all of the brilliant minds and make them come up with solutions for all of the various problems with the country, and then I'd implement the best solutions. Finally at the end of my term I would donate all of the good states (nothern/blue) to Canada, creating the new province of "South Canada". As for the rest of the states, eh screw 'em. This is their punishment for voting Bush.

  422. Funny? Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For ideas and demographic opinions why not look at blogs and places like slashdot for ideas? Wouldn't we be better off if government ran policy ideas or got policy on technology from slashdot? We'd not be wasting money on deadends like microsoft or selling government funded projects (cheaply often as a payoff) to private companies when anything government made should be open source.

    Government run private wikis for academics and other groups to help develop policy would be a good idea. Could make a better wiki system for managing a group of contributors with differing views as well as providing some sort of forum tie-in for the public to comment.

    Me as president?

    * I'd go into a bunker and get work done until they figured out how to kill me because I'd dismantle the most powerful evil organizations; I don't need to travel.

    * VP: Ron Paul

    * Social Issues: Dennis Kucinich

    * Bush Admin -> international war crimes court or treason (see Sibel Edmonds)

    * Investigate! Government is guilty until proven otherwise!

    * Restore VOTING!

  423. Legalize Marijana by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

    I'd legalize marijuana, and retroactively free (literally) millions of non-violent "criminals" from the justice system.

    I'd also push for the draft, so that all you people who supported invading iraq can help clean up the mess you've made. Using the savings from the prison system, and the marijuana tax, I'd send 300,000 more troops over to properly secure the situation. /Canadian

    --
    Jeremy
  424. Heart of Gold by rlp · · Score: 1

    Steal a prototype spaceship powered by the new improbability drive and take off for parts unknown. Oh wait, you said President of the United States ...

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  425. Welfare by Psychotic_Wrath · · Score: 0

    I would like to see some random drug testing on people recieving welfare. You have to take a drugtest for almost any job, why not when your on welfare

    --

    Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
  426. Government shouldn't sanction marriage by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    Civil unions for any couple that wants one. I'd raise the cost of divorce though -- well, sort of. Instead of dividing the property between the ex-spouses, divide it up between the spouses and any underage children, though not necessarily evenly (let's face it, adult necessities have to be met or the children starve).

    On the flip side of the coin, I'd get government out of the marriage business. Civil unions are a matter of contract, and government has every reason to uphold contracts. Marriage is for churches (temples, mosques, whatever) to handle, and it is whatever they say it is. Don't like what they have to say? Ordain yourself and have it your way. If you want to marry your Ford Mustang, go right ahead -- it has no legal standing.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  427. Too bad by Quila · · Score: 1
    "Did you make $50000 or less this year? If yes, you owe $0 in tax, sign here, and do not fill out anything else in this form." To pay for this, I'd stick a big tax on gas, perhaps $1 per gallon.


    Too bad your $50K guy is has a job that requires him to drive 40,000 miles a year. Let's see, at even 40 mpg that comes out to $1,000 extra in tax every year, on top of the current gas taxes. Since he has a wife and three kids to support he wasn't paying any federal income tax before, but now he's out $83 a month.

    Currently, hospitals and doctors try to charge outrageously high prices for their services. Claim they have to pay for all those deadbeats who need care but can't afford it.
    It's not just that. Medical malpractice suits are getting to be a hobby in some states, people looking for the lawsuit lottery, jackpot justice. The insurance premiums are thus extremely high, and the costs are passed to the patients. In fact, they can get so high that some types of doctors are fleeing certain states because they can't afford something like $100K a year in malpractice insurance (plus the building, equipment and staff leaves little for the doctor at standard rates).
  428. Just to screw around with people's minds by grilled-cheese · · Score: 1

    First, I'd put a bunch of third party and libertarians in the senate and congress so the 2 party system at least has a common enemy. A nice side effect would be that years down the road, the 2 party system would still be broken.

    Second, I'd lower the required amount of potential votes needed to participate in national media political candidate debates (Nader should have been allowed to speak).

    Finally, call a national press conference, including interrupting all national broadcasts. Then sit on the desk in the oval office smoke a joint, flip coins on if I was going to sign something or not, and kiss the VP. I figure it's best to be honest about what does on in the white house.

  429. presidential to-do list by Mspangler · · Score: 1

    Fantasy time, is it?

    1) Replace Congress with look-alike robots who do what I want without arguing. I need this to carry off the rest.

    2) Repeal the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and whatever other looney post 9-11 laws were passed.

    3) Rework copyright laws. I was thinking a straight 20 year term would be best, but I've heard of a better idea. Sliding scale. The first 10 years copyright costs $10/year. The second decade is $100/year, the third is $1000/year, and so forth. If Disney thinks the Mouse is worth $10 billion a year for years 101 to 110, why shouldn't the government take the cash?

    4) Ban software patents. Software is covered under copyright.

    5) End corporate personhood, as in corporations may not lobby, or enjoy any rights under the constitution. At the same time, increase Sarbox scrutiny. Make CEOs 100% liable for anything that occurs under their management. Make sure loot and run is no longer legally viable. Also overhaul the laws regulating the Board of Directors. And require the mutual and pension funds to take a more proactive role in management. Did you know most of them are self-prohibited in "interfering" with the business of the companies they hold stock in? No wonder the Boards and CEOs have been getting away with total theft.

    6) Rewrite the Third Amendment to prohibit all unfunded mandates from the Federal Government.

    7) Begin selling public lands in the West, excluding national parks and wilderness areas. When the Government owns 70 or 80 % of the land, and they will not sell, it really screws up the local economy. The money would be placed in a Swiss bank account, denominated in euros, and made untouchable for 20 years, at which time it can be withdrawn only for paying the Social Security Deficit.

    8) Abolish the EPA's authority over State waters; let the States do it. Only the EPA can come up with a requirement to pour battery acid into city water before letting it discharge to an irrigation ditch because the "Local water quality is impaired as the pH is 9.1" All the local water is at 9.1 because that is the normal and natural PH of water here. It also has a silica level of 75 ppm. (Sorry, pet peeve.)

    9) Open Season on spotted owls. Release barred owls, which are much less "sensitive", into that habitat.

    10) Restart nuclear power. Also start fuel reprocessing. Continue with wind, solar and so forth, with the intent of getting baseline electrical loads off of coal in 20 years. Probably won't make it, but it's a worthy goal.

    11) Declare Greenpeace a terrorist organization. Round them up and put them in work camp on the High Plains with only technology that they approve of. So, no metal, wood, animal labor, or quarried stone. Also no windmills, and no solar power other than what falls on their roofs, if they have roofs. See how long they last when forced to live the way they want the rest of us to live.

    12) Continue the War on the Dollar. If, as I recently read, the Chinese are very near the theoretical minimum labor cost, then either they revalue their currency or stop trading with anyone but the US (which they can't since we have no oil) or they will end up with the civil war they narrowly averted at Tianamen Square.

    13) Stop the War on Drugs. Fully legalize (and tax) anything less dangerous than PCP.

    14) Back to corporations. End this Delaware Corporation crap. State-chartered corporations should only be allowed to operate in the state they are registered in, and in contiguous states. So if you want to operate in Washington and Minnesota, then you have to register as a Federal Corporation. This is what the commerce clause was supposed to accomplish.

    15) Repeal that idiotic Supreme court decision (in '38?) that made everything everything subject to the commerce clause, even things you grew on your own property for your own use. FDR was more than a little powermad by then, but the Court should have stood up to him on this one.

    That's enough for now. It's fun to think about.

  430. One thing only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would do my level best to eliminate the legalized bribery system known as lobbying. Everything else is window dressing and would probably be taken care of once bribery was no longer allowed!

    Of course, with the vested interest every politician has, this would probably be impossible. But, the way Bush is expanding the scope of so-called executive orders lately...

  431. This is my favorite essay :) by priyank_bolia · · Score: 1

    This is my favorite essay :). In my school days, every alternate exam of language, has a question: "Write an essay on What will you do, if you were the Prime Minister."

  432. Might want to study up first by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    If I was the President, I'd do 1 and 2. The rest of what you've suggested aren't powers allocated to the president, so he can't do them (though he can try to convince Congress to do them.)

    If I was the President, I'd try to return the Executive branch back to its Constitutional roots. #2 involves funding, which originates in the House of Representatives, not the Executive Branch. A strict literal reading of the document limits to you to #1 only, I'm afraid.

    Enjoy your term--you're going to have a lot of free time on your hands! :-)
    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Might want to study up first by Sancho · · Score: 1

      Congress /approves/ funding--that the President requests.

      All I have to do is request less.

    2. Re:Might want to study up first by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      All federal budgets originate in the House. The President can request whatever he wants to, but the House can create a budget that has no resemblance to such requests. The only power the Constitution gives the President in this process is the veto power.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    3. Re:Might want to study up first by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      #2 involves funding, which originates in the House of Representatives, not the Executive Branch. A strict literal reading of the document limits to you to #1 only, I'm afraid.

      A strict as well as practical reading of the Constitution allows the president to veto spend bills. So if congress sends a bill with too much spending money he can veto it.

      Enjoy your term--you're going to have a lot of free time on your hands! :-)

      I probably would, depending on how many bills congress passes. My veto stamp would get a good workout though. Then either congress could go home and get real jobs or they can try to override my vetoes.

      Well, now that I think about it I think I would be real busy at first. I would propose Amendment XVIII (28). It's text would be real simple to understand, "Congress shall not meet for more than 90 days every 2 years unless the president calls for a special session."

      Falcon
    4. Re:Might want to study up first by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      A strict as well as practical reading of the Constitution allows the president to veto spend bills. So if congress sends a bill with too much spending money he can veto it. Sure, just like he can veto the Social Security Administration funding bill if income limits are not removed, or veto the Transportation approps bill if there's not enough funding for public transportation, or veto Energy approps if ITER isn't funded, etc. Federal spending is appropriated annually, so there are plenty of opportunities for a president to wield that veto pen.

      As you've pointed out, being limited to a veto does not mean that subjects like spending levels or Social Security reform are constitutionally off-limits to the President. The Constitution doesn't tell a president what to think, it just tells him which levers of power he's allowed to pull to get what he wants.

      My veto stamp would get a good workout though. Then either congress could go home and get real jobs or they can try to override my vetoes. Faced with that choice, I bet they'd override your vetoes. :-)
      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    5. Re:Might want to study up first by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      My veto stamp would get a good workout though. Then either congress could go home and get real jobs or they can try to override my vetoes.

      Faced with that choice, I bet they'd override your vetoes. :-)

      I bet they wouldn't. Congress has had plenty of chances to override vetoes by Bush and yet they have overridden exactly zero vetoes. Heck the Democrats came to power on the promise to end the war in Iraq but they are still bickering over it a year after coming to power. And they don't even have to override the president to end the war, all they have to do is not pass any funding bills. Are any of them suggesting they do that? No, they spend their tyme on bickering over funding details, with most if not all of the Democrat candidates for president supporting keeping the troops in Iraq. Barack Obama is the only one who has detailed how he would bring the troops home that I've seen. Clinton and Edwards plan to keep the troops there.

      Falcon
  433. If I were President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I would fix the following things: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm http://www.teamlaw.org/control.htm http://www.commonlawvenue.com/Summaries/02-eliminate_taxes.htm http://whatreallyhappened.wikia.com/wiki/Tax_Protection http://whatreallyhappened.wikia.com/wiki/Church_Legal_Protections There's another one I found but I have since lost about how the "law of 1812" that the District of Columbia was founded as the Corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA as opposed to the organic entity "united states of America" in the original documents. That this was a corporation owned by the London banks that were lending the "us government" money. And as such, the government in any kind of constitutional means ceased to exist in 1812. It technically only has jurisdiction over Washington DC. When you are asked if you are a U.S. Citizen, after 1812, you are implying that you are a citizen of DC and thus under the rules of the corporation. I will find the source and include it later. Althought IANAL... but if this is true, then I'm glad I'm not, cause they're in on it. I would definitely get to the bottom of this though.

  434. Can't resist.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, Interns do You!

  435. my list by Bauguss · · Score: 1

    first of all. for all those wanting to end the war. Ok thats fine and dandy. However, realistically the damage is done. Pulling out quickly would be a disaster. Al Qaeda and the fundamentalists would roll in and tear Iraq apart. I'm sick of the politicians that are running on the basis of pulling out immediately. The first week in office, the new president is going to talk to all the international bigwigs and they are going to come out and say you can't just leave.

    We have to get past how badly Bush messed up Iraq. The new President must gain perspective on the situation. I would work with congress and the military leadership. A consensus must be made. It must be collectively implemented. We as a nation need to collectively see this through. The end goal is for Iraq to be stable. The Iraqi security forces must be able to maintain peace by themselves. One idea I'd propose is a withdrawal of US forces from populated cities. We could sit on the outskirts and provide a support role. This would be a good compromise for those that want us completely out. It would also allow the Iraqi forces to scale their need of us as they see fit. Anyway, I could write a book on this.

    Enough of that. Other big issues. Flat out, we need to become an energy independent country. The technology already exists to get the job done. US oil should be forced to perform much of the research too. (tax incentives to encourage them) If hydrogen is going to be an integral part of the future, then a date needs to be set for hydrogen at every gas station. Aside from transportation energy, the power grid needs to be overhauled. More solar and more wind. I would look into wave technology as well. I would want to pass an energy bill that requires a certain amount of clean energy by a reasonably aggressive year. I would overturn the latest administration blunder making states follow the national standard instead of allowing the states to do their own thing. I'm also curious about solar on the big buildings of major cities. All that roof top space that serves no purpose. would it be bad to put solar up there or would it create too much of a glare? Anyway, Oil companies free ride is over. No longer would they be allowed to raise their profits so grossly without passing it back to the consumer. Either directly via gas prices or indirectly via research into our future.

    Next, the environment. So much needs to be done here. Much can be achieved from the energy issue. There is much more that can be done too. Builders need to stop being cheap when they build houses. New insulation standards need to be set. Houses should not be sold without the best air/heat option available that fits the size house. There are insulation techniques that can greatly improve the retention of cold/hot air as well. Recycling is another big deal. When I lived in Albuquerque, recycling was not easy to do. My first place here in dallas area was no good either. However, when I moved down the road in the same dallas suburb, my house came with a huge recycling container. (40 gallon bin) I now fill it very easily for every pick up. (every other week) A national standard should be set to make recycling as easy as possible. Perhaps implement a discount to folks that fill that can every pick up period. (while in the end, the customers should pay for recycling costs, something needs to be done to get people in the habit) Encourage increasing the pick up from every other week to every week. I would look into other easy to do things that are good for the environment and your monthly energy bills and make sure the people knew about everything already out there.

    Education. The education system is horrible. It caters to only a certain style of learning. Teachers are grossly underpaid. In Texas, it was recently reported that the state lottery raised 10 billion dollars over the last 10 years for education. Why aren't teachers seeing this? Most of it goes to college scholarship programs. While thats good, better educatio

  436. What I would do as President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I take over as President, I will :-

    1. Invade countries for their oil,
    2. Remove all your constitutional rights,
    3. Make all my rich friends even richer,
    4. Act like a moron, so all the other morons will vote for me.
    5. Pander to the religious right so I can action point 1, 2, & 3 in the name of God.
    6. And accuse anyone who is not with us...is against us.

    But nobody would fall for that !

    Signed
    A. B'stard

  437. President I be by Retief-CDT · · Score: 0

    Act first I take, would be State of Mexico and State of Canada created would be, like it not will they.
    Act second I take, ban music from the past years 20 and shoot executives of Mass Media, plus $50 bounty for all and any Lawyers but only during season for hunting (Conservationists may insist on leaving a few to survive, numbers therefore must be determined for what constitutes a viable population of the vermin.).
    Act third I take, Congressman required to work they would, in unheated poorly ventilated and freebies no, buildings. Punch one in the nose for citizens edification daily. Perhaps Sacrifice a Senator weekly on pay TV to budget solve we would.
    Act fourth I take, World I tell, hike to take, them selves to bugger, US.. no more Goodies for Undesirables (Rest of World) we give.
    Act fifth I take, Week for work, hours max 30, overtime Offense Capital will be. Salaries Executives for, 95% taxed if 10 times average Workers wages have they.

    --
    Matt's addition to Occam's Razor:"The most simple answer is preferred by those that are simple."
  438. my answer by knightperson · · Score: 1

    I know I'm too many pages down for this to get read, but I'm going to say it anyway. The first and only thing I can think of right now is get rid of this whole enemy combatant thing. Tell the directors of the CIA and any armed forces involved "You have 30 days to reclassify all the enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay and wherever else they're being held. 30 days from now, they will ALL be either charged with a crime and given legal representation, classified prisoners of war and allowed visits by the Red Cross, or set free. Anybody who can not accept these terms has 7 days to give me their resignation. The timer starts now."

  439. Well I would... by kramer2718 · · Score: 1

    Probably sit around all the time and look at pr0n and let Dick Cheney run the country.

  440. What I would do. by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    Annex Mexico. You guys need another star on the flag.
    Revert all the spelling back to the Queen's English.
    Adopt the Metric system.
    Devalue the US$ by about 50%
    Tell Conan O'Brien that he's better without his writers.
    Dispose of the RIAA and MPAA.
    Have a prosecutor on-hand at every Jerry Springer show. Some of the admissions made are criminal.
    Rename all 'World Series' games to 'National Series'
    Legalize Marijuana, euthanasia.
    Remove the death penalty.
    Nationalize Microsoft.
    Free medical for those on Social Security.
    Flat Federal Tax rate with no state taxes.
    Remove export prohibitions based on greed.
    Find Osama
    Only prop planes for internal travel - no jets.
    Limit fuel consumption to 10 litre per 100km cars immediately. (Approx 30 mpg US)
    The President MUST HAVE a regular supply of interns selected by Hugh Hefner with culinary skills like peeling seedless grapes.
    States to fix their own problems as I'm too busy being fed peeled, seedless grapes.
    All other matters go to the Vice President.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  441. work on environmental issues and peak oil by ghfw · · Score: 1

    If I were president, the first thing I would do is declare a sort of marshal law because there are major problems with the environment, and with current system of political BS in washington with lobbyist and the old boy network of politics nothing really get done...

    By executive order, I'd term limit all elected officials that way there would be no entrenced political BS, for example

    the president (1) six year term - that way he does not have to worry about re-election and can concentrate on the job at hand
    a state senator would have (1) six year term - that way he does not have to worry about re-election and can concentrate on the job at hand
    a state representative in the house would have (1) three year term - ditto

    this would get rid of political lifers, and I'd try and lead by example.

    To make sure the transition of power goes somewhat smooth, I would mandate all elected officials to serve a 1 year internship with the official they were going to replace, that way they have some kind of institutional insight what the job will require and learn what works and what does not work. Since there are two state senitors, I'd have there terms overlap (so a senator would be a jr the first three years, then a sr senator the last three)

    During an elected officials internship, since I think there has not been enough scientific knowledge and too much legal BS in government, so I would require all elected officials to take basic math, physics, chemistry, biology and world history exams (say basic freshman college level exams), and post the score for the public to see that officials have some basic knowledge and understand (a side benefit would be since people are competive who knows they might even be driven to learn, and show how smart they are).

    For my own personal term in office, I would be dedicaed to one topic, investing in the environment!

    As it stands the global demand for basic resources like oil and water is far out pacing limited global suppies. For example in the southeast united states, the is just a little bit of a demend imbalance with water supplies, as it stands I give the atlanta region just about a year before the shit hits the fan, because water demand is pretty quickly depleating water supplies.

    so far elected officials don't have the balls to take a stand or make a plan to deal with a worst case scenario, even FOX news has a report "No Backup Water Plan in Place for Drought-Stricken Atlanta"

    Water is not a sexy subject and most people don't realize that 97 percent of all water is in the oceans. ONLY three percent of all Earth's water that is freshwater. The majority of the freshwater, about 69 percent, is locked up in glaciers and icecaps, mainly in Greenland and Antarctica. You might be surprised that of the remaining freshwater, almost all of it is below your feet, as ground water. No matter where on Earth you are standing, chances are that, at some depth, the ground below you is saturated with water. Of all the freshwater on Earth, only about 0.3 percent is contained in rivers and lakes.

    To put this into perspective, if 100 liters represented all the water in the world, then only about a shot glass full would be all the fresh water available for our use!

    There is a similar problem with oil, BTW did you know it takes about 98 tons of biological matter in 1 gal of oil. As it stands the IEA is reporting that at current depleation rates oil production, peak oil might have occured or will occur within a short time frame, best case estimate is 40 years from now, but I'm not buying that...

    now that ya have an idea about the concerns I have as president, I will try and direct the economy and society toward solutions...

    as everyone knows, there are lots of bible thu

    1. Re:work on environmental issues and peak oil by ghfw · · Score: 1

      I was just thinkng about another tax idea I'd have to encourage investing long term in the stock market, as it stands there is 15% tax on stocks held for 1 year (that is the long terms cap gains rate)

      too many people look at stock markets as a way to make money quickly, its called momentum trading (in and out of a stock in a short time frame). I'd try and restore some order in the markets and have people try and consider the long term "stable" approach. So I'd have a long term cap gains tax at the current historic low of 15%, but for only for investments held for a period of 6 years, a medium cap gains rate of 28% for stocks and investments held for 1 year and a top rate of 38% (which is the top tax rate I think right now) for all other stock or investment sales held less than 1 year.

      I think a three tier tax on investments like this, would help remove some of the volatility in the equity markets, and I think a similar tax structure like this could work for real estate, so people would not try and flip homes, which is one reason we had/have a little problem with subprime loans and the financial markets.

      yeah I know the president can't make laws, but this would be part of marshal law I'd mandate to try and help the system invest for the long term....

    2. Re:work on environmental issues and peak oil by Quila · · Score: 1

      For example in the southeast united states, the is just a little bit of a demend imbalance with water supplies, as it stands I give the atlanta region just about a year before the shit hits the fan, because water demand is pretty quickly depleating water supplies
      We have a "drought" here with some reservoirs completely dry, yet others fairly close that are filled. It's not a "drought," it's a distribution problem.

      As it stands the IEA is reporting that at current depleation rates oil production, peak oil might have occured or will occur within a short time frame, best case estimate is 40 years from now, but I'm not buying that.
      Over 20 years ago I saw a presentation that said we'd all without oil by now and starving. Paging Mr. Malthus. Few people believe Chicken Little anymore after his previous predictive failures. Find another tact.

      I'm 100% sure that unsustainable conspicuous consumption of natural basic resources (like water and oil) will eventually lead to a proverbial hell on earth
      A much easier way is to remind them that God created the Earth and left us as its stewards. Thus, it's practically a sin to be irresponsible about the environment.

      I'd also have tax credits for people who install solar panel, invest in wind turbine
      We already have that.

    3. Re:work on environmental issues and peak oil by ghfw · · Score: 1

      I realize that history is filled with doom and gloom types, and I really hope my basic analysis is wrong. But for some nagging reason the more I look at the problem, the more I find several trends trends that do not bode well for the general population of the US as well as large segements of the global population, perhaps I am a nut case that has kinda obsessed looking at the current data.

      To respond to some of your points, local distribution might indeed be a solution to local water shortages. But by "drought" I am looking at the disturbing trend of "supply exceeding demand" in for basic natural resources like water and oil. In the 1970 Mr. Malthus, might have sent people running for the hills with warnings of doom and gloom, but I keep on falling back on the disturbing idea that supply is exceeding demand for key natural resources that are the basis of the modern global economy.

      Classical economic arguements, are as prices go up of item oil or water for example, then the market responds by building infrastructure to drill for more oil or build more infrastructure to capture and transport more water. Back in the 70's the only major consumers in the world were in the united states, westeren europe and japan. The total population of the consumer culture was on the order of 500 million people.

      I'm not an economist, but one thing I don't see basic economic models is the idea of a limit from basic calculus. In the 1970's the usa, europe and japan were able to grow their economies and improve their lifestyles by borrowing resources from abroad. Economies grow by using natural resources like oil and water. For example using the concept of embodied water did you know it takes about 10 gals of water to make one computer chip.

      The reason I have an uneasy gut feeling bad things rae in store, is because china and india are now beginning to consume just like the usa, europe and japan. So the total number of consumers in a consumer economy is now over 2.5 billion people. To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, the average person in the USA uses about 100 gals of water per day, and the total oil used per capita is something over 20 barrels of oil (1 barrel = 42 gal), in china and india the average useage is a magnitude less for both water and oil (but demand in those emerging markets is going up).

      I've actually been in more than my fair share of 3rd world countries, and can understand why they envy and want the american life style of cars, cheap food, big homes, etc. But when I did basic calculations of the the embodied energy required to sustain the average american life style and balanced them out with existing know resources, the numbers indicate that something will eventually have to give. My basic analysis is too much money in the USA is spent on consumer goods (which consume large amounts of natural resources), but not enought is being "invested" in basic infrastructure, R&D and directed technology to sustain the current consumer life style in USA. In effect this present generation is borrowing resources from future generations, its akin to the bad management decisions made in the subprime mess. When fundamentals and conservative management is ignored then is going to be hell to pay.

      As far as appealing to religious groups, I'm not quite sure if candy coating the problems of natural resource management is the best strategy in the long run. During the cold war and even after the 9/11 attack, people were motivated by fear which I think is a much more powerful force in terms of humans trying to do something.

      FOr example, let's say a balanced diet and exercist is a good thing. Ever notice that 2/3 of the american public is overweight and unfit, btw that figure in what I've read in more than a few news articles. I've also read that heart diesease is the number one cause of premature death in the USA on the order 400,000. Most people if polled would say diet and exercise is a good thing but they really don't follo

  442. Let's see. by Carbon016 · · Score: 1
    Obviously, not all of these (okay, most) can be done with the power of the executive, but I'm confident with Bush's legacy in mind at least quite a few can be. - Pull troops out of Iraq ASAP, send UN peacekeeping forces. During the interim period, not only loosen but remove the restrictions on Baathists (who knew how to run a secular government) serving in public office. Focus on building infrastructure, aid programs, microlending. - Take a hard-line stance on Pakistan. Press Musharraf to allow a limited-scope special forces operation in limited areas of Pakistan in an attempt to track down Osama bin Laden. Call him on the bullshit regarding the assassination of Bhutto. It wasn't a bloody sunroof lever. - Focus on combating the Taliban in Afghanistan. As with Iraq, build infrastructure and microlending to encourage startups, especially ones ravaged by the war. - Get Congress to pass legislation forbidding unlabeled "supplements" from being marketed as a treatment of any disease (not just OK with a stupid little label and no bite), aggressively shutting down and jailing fraudsters like Kevin Trudeau. "Alternative medicine" needs to be leashed and if any of its various claims do not meet a minimum double-blind study proving effectiveness, not just that it won't kill you, anyone who practices them needs to be stripped of their medical license and jailed for fraud. - Work on national education regarding obesity, specifically the ways that it can be fought (through exercise and diet changes). Possibly some sort of program where the government matches private funds for programs like Weight Watchers, dietitians, or personal trainers. We could let the stupid be stupid or we could stop the drain on our health care dollars by doing something about it. In a perfect world, those who become obese by their own free will would simply accept the consequences of their actions (and probably die at 25 of a heart attack), but that's not how it works now. - Carbon tax. - Subsidize nuclear power plant construction across the country. We need clean power, and we need it now. Manhattan Project-like R&D for superconductors, hydrogen as a energy storage mechanism, better and cleaner batteries, anything that can take the US from a petrochemical economy to an electric economy. We can't slack on either the storage or production aspects - we have to have storage mechanisms that are largely free of heavy metals and don't require dumping all sorts of crap into the atmosphere, and we need to have efficient and clean power production. Solar isn't efficient enough; we can worry about improving it later. - Federal funding for those who stand in elections, both local and possibly national. Restrict viable candidates to a set budget which they may provide themselves or have provided for them. Ordinary Americans would be able to run for office just like anyone else. - Legalize marijuana. Up the tobacco-buying age to 21. Alcohol can be used responsibly, as can marijuana. Tobacco is a classy way to kill yourself, as Vonnegut noted. Do more research on harmful effects of drugs and possibly legalize (with medical supervision) LSD and "magic mushrooms". At the same time, education programs for meth, heroin, cocaine, and other clearly harmful substances. Stop spouting BS about weed and start teaching the facts about drugs. They're bad enough, they don't need more exaggeration. - Death penalty needs to go. - Prison reform. We need to not only treat the effect but the cause - this means we need to really dive into the root causes of crime and fix them one by one. - Like was said in another comment:

    The first and only thing I can think of right now is get rid of this whole enemy combatant thing. Tell the directors of the CIA and any armed forces involved "You have 30 days to reclassify all the enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay and wherever else they're being held. 30 days from now, they will ALL be either charged with a crime and given legal representation, classified prisoners of war and allowed visits by the Red Cross, or set free

    1. Re:Let's see. by Carbon016 · · Score: 1
      Oh wow, talk about forgetting to change it to "plain old text". Let's try that again.

      Obviously, not all of these (okay, most) can be done with the power of the executive, but I'm confident with Bush's legacy in mind at least quite a few can be.

      - Pull troops out of Iraq ASAP, send UN peacekeeping forces. During the interim period, not only loosen but remove the restrictions on Baathists (who knew how to run a secular government) serving in public office. Focus on building infrastructure, aid programs, microlending.

      - Take a hard-line stance on Pakistan. Press Musharraf to allow a limited-scope special forces operation in limited areas of Pakistan in an attempt to track down Osama bin Laden. Call him on the bullshit regarding the assassination of Bhutto. It wasn't a bloody sunroof lever.

      - Focus on combating the Taliban in Afghanistan. As with Iraq, build infrastructure and microlending to encourage startups, especially ones ravaged by the war.

      - Get Congress to pass legislation forbidding unlabeled "supplements" from being marketed as a treatment of any disease (not just OK with a stupid little label and no bite), aggressively shutting down and jailing fraudsters like Kevin Trudeau. "Alternative medicine" needs to be leashed and if any of its various claims do not meet a minimum double-blind study proving effectiveness, not just that it won't kill you, anyone who practices them needs to be stripped of their medical license and jailed for fraud.

      - Work on national education regarding obesity, specifically the ways that it can be fought (through exercise and diet changes). Possibly some sort of program where the government matches private funds for programs like Weight Watchers, dietitians, or personal trainers. We could let the stupid be stupid or we could stop the drain on our health care dollars by doing something about it. In a perfect world, those who become obese by their own free will would simply accept the consequences of their actions (and probably die at 25 of a heart attack), but that's not how it works now.

      - Carbon tax.

      - Subsidize nuclear power plant construction across the country. We need clean power, and we need it now. Manhattan Project-like R&D for superconductors, hydrogen as a energy storage mechanism, better and cleaner batteries, anything that can take the US from a petrochemical economy to an electric economy. We can't slack on either the storage or production aspects - we have to have storage mechanisms that are largely free of heavy metals and don't require dumping all sorts of crap into the atmosphere, and we need to have efficient and clean power production. Solar isn't efficient enough; we can worry about improving it later.

      - Federal funding for those who stand in elections, both local and possibly national. Restrict viable candidates to a set budget which they may provide themselves or have provided for them. Ordinary Americans would be able to run for office just like anyone else. - Legalize marijuana. Up the tobacco-buying age to 21. Alcohol can be used responsibly, as can marijuana. Tobacco is a classy way to kill yourself, as Vonnegut noted. Do more research on harmful effects of drugs and possibly legalize (with medical supervision) LSD and "magic mushrooms". At the same time, education programs for meth, heroin, cocaine, and other clearly harmful substances. Stop spouting BS about weed and start teaching the facts about drugs. They're bad enough, they don't need more exaggeration.

      - Death penalty needs to go.

      - Prison reform. We need to not only treat the effect but the cause - this means we need to really dive into the root causes of crime and fix them one by one.

      - Like was said in another comment:

      The first and only thing I can think of right now is get rid of this whole enemy combatant thing. Tell the directors of the CIA and any armed forces involved "You have 30 days to reclassify all the enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay and wherever else they're being held. 30 days from

  443. If I could... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legalize female prostitution.
    Work to abolish age-of-consent laws, or at least try to make them more reasonable.
    Work to eliminate anti-pornography laws.
    Work to restore Constitutional rights, especially those relating to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, as those have taken the most severe beatings.

  444. #7-#1 by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    The deficit is an insidious beast. It exists for the primary purpose of wealth transfer and is essentially one of the most elaborate and successful Ponzi schemes ever conceived--and, contrary to popular belief, most of the beneficiaries of this welfare program are wealthy Americans, not Chinese bureaucrats.

  445. I dunno about president... by crimson30 · · Score: 1

    But as "benevolent dictator":

    1. Voter licensing: Some sort of test on government/logic/whatever before you can vote (similar to a driver's test).
    2. Jury licensing... some test to weed out lousy jurors.
    3. Balanced budget required by law (and a fierce effort at reducing the national debt).
    4. Close various overseas bases.
    5. Encourage other countries to handle world hotspots (like sell arms to Isreal and help them take over arab countries).
    6. Minefield on the southern border in addition to a fence.
    7. School vouchers.
    8. Free healthcare for anyone under 21.
    9. Flat tax (in addition to lowering taxes).
    10. Removal of tax haven status for religion.
    11. Get rid of most government subsidies.
    12. Get rid of social security and welfare.
    13. Tax the hell out of gas and auto related crap and use it to build lots of mass transit.
    14. Legalize prostitution.
    15. English only... though I would prefer any phonetic world language (Esperanto, perhaps?).
    16. Adopt metric by force.
    17. Slowly convert traffic signage to something more European.
    18. Go after scammers like Kevin Trudeau & Sylvia Brown, spammers, domain squatters, lobbyists, racists, thugs... and anyone else I don't like.

  446. A Little late to the game, But wanna play too. by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
    My Platform. Join every other civilized nation on the planet:
    Institute Health Care for all
    Institute College for every American regardless of finances.

    End the War in Iraq.

    Remove tax free status of religious institutions.
    Repeal federal Drug bans and pardon non-violent offenders

    Mandate vacation time ala France

    Kill no child left behind and Reinstate Head Start

    Seperate DHS in appropriate organizations

    Make the title "____" Czar illegal

    Change FCC to ensure it actually does it's job

    Thats probably all I could hope to get done before I was silenced.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  447. 1 - Fiscal Responsibility by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    1 - Fiscal responsibility. The interest paid annually on the national debt (~10 trillion dollars) is approaching the size of the entire military budget. This is a big waste of American's money. To achieve that goal:

    2 - End senseless wars immediately, keep a strong military at home ready for some sensible wars, wars of self defense.

    3 - End foreign aid to uncooperative nations.

    4 - Establish a surplus tax revenue to pay off the national debt. In fact, let's keep the coffers in the positive numbers, and let the interest work for us.

    5 - Push through an energy bill which taxes wasteful energy use. Use those funds to develop solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

    6 - Enforce or change immigration law.

    7 - Higher education. Make it more affordable to all Americans.

    8 - End the war on drugs. Let the market demand decide. Tax it and let Darwin sort out the rest.

    9 - If you're born here, to illegal immigrants, you're not a citizen.

    10 - Ensure even handed foreign policy, treat all nations equitably, to ensure national security, and avoid terrorism.

    11 - Respect all sovereign nations. Democracy is not mandatory. Except for the USA.

    12 - Resume trade with communist Cuba, as we trade with communist China. It will be good for both nations.

    13 - Reduce dependence on foreign oil through conservation. Promote fuel efficient vehicles.

    14 - End waterboarding, close Guantanamo. America does not torture. We have standards.

    15 - Turn in America's policeman of the world badge. The US president is elected by Americans, not the world.

    16 - Health care, is there an answer? Or shall we leave it to Darwin? Free universal health care? Who are we as Americans, brothers and sisters, or competing cutthroats? Lets try the former and take care of one another. Free medical school, and you work for the government when you get out.

    Obviously my administration would get nothing done, because I would be battled tooth and nail on every step.

  448. Tough choice, but -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let's talk for a moment about "fairness". A person doing hot tar roofing earns $9 an hour. Tiger Woods earns $171 a minute for playing golf. Stephen Spielberg earns $632 a minute. Paris Hilton is set for life for doing absolutely nothing of value. Is that a fair rewarding of labor?" ... Okay, I'll take the roof, please. Hold the rest of that shit.

  449. Who finance me ? by Delifisek · · Score: 1

    It seems, every US president bond the who finance him. For Bush he do whatever Oil and Weapon cartels.

    If the /. raises money for elections. You may have geekish president.

    For us ?

    It was very different story...

    --
    [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
  450. If I were president by samantha · · Score: 1

    With Executive Orders you could do most anything for a time.

    1) Repeal all drug laws, disband DEA, free all prisoners in on drug charges;
    2) Remove all funds to "faith-based" initiatives;
    3) Disband IRS and go temporarily to a flat tax, push for repeal of 16th amendment. End income withholding immediately;
    4) Declare fixed bandwidth sales obsolete, null and void;
    5) Get the government out of education, health care, housing, charity, etc as quickily as possible without major harm;
    6) Get the government out of science;
    7) Disband the DHS and salt the ground;
    8) End the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the entire bogus "War on Terror";
    9) Institute rigorous privacy requirements including financial privacy as the government no longer has de facto rights over all money and money equivalents you touch;
    10) Rigorously enforce the Bill of Rights including hard prosecution of any and all government officials who in any way break it.
    11) I don't believe in government subsidies but do what can be done to unblock the path to country-wide always available cheap high speed broadband;
    12) Mandate IPV6 everywhere by a fixed date;
    13) Return all lands outside government facilities held by the government to the free market;
    14) Repeal all laws restricting the free market.

    And anything else my geeky anarcho-captitalist little head comes up with until my last act:

    Disband the office of President as we know it.

    OK, you asked me to dream. :-)

  451. Knowing what the executive office is capable of... by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

    First act as President of the United States:

    Announce my mustering of the entirety of the Marines, for beck and call.

    Second:

    Announce that the Marines would be kept at beck and call until the end of my term.

    Third:

    Urge the Congress to come up with their own plan for the stabilization and withdrawal from Iraq, with my guaranteed approval as long as two pre-requisites were met. One, that there are peacekeeping forces available, whether our own or UN (with provisions to help the UN should it be necessary); and second that a set rate of activity be bested before set withdrawal (when suicide bombings fall under x-amount per month, etc.; with aid from military advisors to set this number).

    Fourth:

    Given that governmental corruption has been so rampant within the past 8 years, any and all measures proposed by congress would be vetoed after the Iraq agreement until 3 requirements were met:

    One: All Senators and Congressmen have to make their financial information regarding campaign finances and personal luxury spending public knowledge.

    Two: All Corporate investments (The source of the funds must be made known, no matter how many lobbyists package it) are open to scrutiny by opposing parties, and must be made public in order to run for office.

    Three: Absolutely every part of any executive branch member's financial history is up to scrutiny; following the same rules as the legislative branch's. This includes credit, property loans, ownership, who gifted or sold said property, everything. Public knowledge meaning that it must be disclosed in ballot brochures, everything.

    If I am not impeached yet:

    All political contributions are taxed both ways. (Following the same veto threat)

    Abso-fucking-lutely no gifting to public officials. Either it's a campaign contribution (subject to above rules) or it's a sale. Both are public knowledge. Both would still be subject to federal and state laws (which are pretty good for preventing pay-offs, assuming people can legally find out about the "contributions")

    With all that in mind, here's the caveat:

    Public officials get paid in relation to economic and spending performance. Say the Gov pulls in 4 trillion a year, if the economy grows %5 relative to inflation, it gets split between everyone, on a progressive pay grade. If it goes negative, they take a pay cut. Basically, make it their best interest for the US GDP to grow as much as possible. Dictating that economic growth would be international banking associations, which I would push heavily onto the UN to sniff at VERY intently. Any shady dealings, and shit hits the fan as far as UN funding is concerned (We are their best investor, after all).

    My end point is this: this country is, in the end, run like a company. We need to reward the employees for good service, not just give them the money for free like we are now. I would run for office in a heart beat, if I thought I would be properly rewarded for my efforts. I fully and whole-heartedly believe that if our public officials received bonuses for performing well and bringing up our economy and standard of life, we would have some of the brightest people in office that we could ever imagine. If we had the best running the country, this country would be the center of the planet, both educationally and industrially. The fact is, there's not enough money in it.

    Let's run this place like a business. The better this economy is doing, the better our standard of living, the better our public officials should be getting paid. People often don't often understand that the best people in any field are going to come at a hefty price. I think that running this country on that basis would improve everything. If you can keep this country's economy on the upswing, and keep our quality of life increasing by enacting what needs to be enacted to get it done, you should be making a fuck-ton of money. You'd be worth it.

    Let's try running this country in the spirit of capitalism for a change

    --
    Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
  452. I'm Norwegian, but since you asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make the US a Norwegian county (fylke), and call it United States of Norway.

    Switch to the metric system and ban all use of imperial units.

    Scrap the US$, and use a real currency like the Norwegian krone.

    Send all lawyers and politicians to a secret prison I'll build in Hell http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilde:Hell_norway_sign.jpg

    Remove all troops from Iraq and invade Sweden. Just because. You'll understand when you've been norwegianised.

    Raise taxes 670% to proper Norwegian levels.

    Employ all the unemployed by making some fjords.

    Make it illegal to NOT punch anyone in the face who utters 'communist' if you're talking about socialism. Hard. It pisses me off!

    Nuke someone. Doesn't matter who. I just want to do it once. It's on my 'List of things to to before I die'.

    1. Re:I'm Norwegian, but since you asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You confuse me very much. You want to nuke someone, yet you have such compassion for the poor that you would violently defend socialism.

  453. Re:A Little late to the game, But wanna play too. by freedom_india · · Score: 1

    Nice try asshole. You would be stopped by the time you opened your fly about Health Care for all

    along lines of Britain.
    I mean stopped literally *by a bullet* in your mouth and fly (each).

    Now let's try it once more, shall we:
    My Platform:
    1. Stop all funding to UNCTAD, UNAID and other UN organisation which do not accept US hegemony

    over them. After all if i buy enough stocks in a company i get a seat on board. If i pay enough

    to UN, i get booted out??? What logic is this?
    So no seat==No payments. Let see how long the UN survives.

    2. Provide tax breaks to health care providers: They are struggling enough with lawsuits and such

    from single moms and hispanics who sue the HMO for not paying them medical bills because their

    stupid sons drove a bicycle on a highway. I mean if you are that stupid, then you don't deserve

    to multiply your family anyway.

    3. Continue the surge. After all its working as Gen Betrayus *er.. sorry* Petraus proved.

    Institute draft. After all the Executive is working under war powers act from 9/11.
    Make sure firstborns of congressmen, citibank executives, halliburton, etc are exempted for

    *essential duty*

    4. Make paying for colleges more expensive by recruiting ex-CEOs like Worldcom ex, who have

    served time. After all they could provide useful information to budding CEOs on how NOT to get

    caught, next time. Secondly by making it costlier we are weeding out the useless poor who just

    suck up resources and draw down social security without contributing anything to society.

    5. Extend diplomatic immunity from prosecution for parishes and churches. After all diplomatic

    missions from stupid countries like Libya, Ghana get immunity for passing fake notes, traffic

    tickets, and espionage etc. The catholic church is a mission from Vatican country, and as such is

    each church is a diplomatic compound. Each priest is immune to prosecution from any crime they

    commit under passion (after all they are priests and succumb to temptation).

    6. Incarcerate ANY and ALL offenders for a minimum of 3 years irrespective of crime. For two

    reasons: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Secondly, the corporates who construct and

    manage prisons pay a lot of taxes. This reduces the defecit.

    7. Make sure the FCC allows tax paying corporates to flourish.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  454. What the hell does this have to do with ron paul? by jevring · · Score: 1

    The question was what would YOU do if you were president.
    I would do two things. I would give my citizens back their civil liberties, and I would tone down the whole world police agenda.
    Granted, there are a lot of things wrong with that country, but fixing those two things would probably go a long way towards a more peaceful planet, AND could possibly save the american economy, since fewer countries would hate america.

    --
    Move sig!
  455. What I'd do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Legalize marajuana. Make it illegal to drive while stoned. Grow it, or buy it in the liquor stores. Available to everyone over 18.

    2) Lower the drinking age to 18. Promote parental responsibility by teaching children how to handle alcohol BEFORE they turn 18 and go ape shit.

    3) Forget the Cuba sanctions. Hasn't worked, and won't.

    4) Get out of Iraq... cordon off the area with the oil wells - guard that.... Let the Iraqies sell it to us and whomever doesn't support terrorism... Fuck the rest of the country.

    5) Stop sticking our nose in where it's not wanted. Help out with disasters and that kind of humanitarian stuff, but forget the rest of it - just because it doesn't stick with our values. Prime Directive anyone?

    6) Back to basics with the civil rights - no more Patriot Act, or any of that bullshit. Yep, we need a good intelligence system, but not at the expense of the People. WE put the Government into power to protect us, they'll just have to do the best they can with what WE'VE given them. If they can't, and WE choose not to give them more power, then we have to live with what we've got.

    7) Guns: Every able bodied citizen over 13 who wants one, and who isn't mentally retarded, or a violent felon gets one. They get 3000 rounds of serialized ammo too. They have to shoot off 1000 rounds every year and practice. Kids learn how to shoot when they're 10 years old.

    You get to carry your gun out in the open, or concealed - wherever you want to carry it - w/o restrictions.

    8) Abortion: If you don't like it - don't get one. If you don't like someone else getting one - then offer to pay ALL of their medical expenses, and contract to ADOPT the child(ren) after birth. No backouts by the mothers either - once you decide, that's it. No bullshit.

    9) Rest of the "Drugs": Legalize it. Tax it. No driving while high. If you get addicted - and want to get off it - then we'll pay for that ONCE. After that, it's your fucken problem.

    10) Speed limit: 55 isn't working. I don't know anyone except old fools with hats who fuck up traffic who obey it. 80 should be the limit. If you don't want to go 80 stay off the highway (yeah, except during the usual things like bad weather...). If you go slow and fuck up traffic, you lose your license for a month, then 2 months, then 6 months, then a year, then forever... escalate the penalties... Move it or lose it.

    11) No driving on the highway after you turn 70. Figure out a different way to get there - your reflexes aren't fast enough for it (even at 55)...

    12) Flat tax: 15%. No capital gains taxes - it was taxed once. Sales taxes capped at 5%. No special taxes on phone service or gas or whatever. Everything comes out of the 15%.

    13) Amendments to bills proposed in either State/Federal house must be 100% related to the bill they're being attached to. No more burying shit in the military appropriations bills to get it passed...

    14) Forget "Real ID" - enough of that bullshit. We don't want it, don't need it, and it's not going to do jack shit anyway.

    15) Homeland Security - Hire some people with brains at the airports. No more taking off the shoes. Let us carry on whatever amount of liquid we want... 3oz is bullshit. Issue everyone a knife upon boarding - anyone pulls any shit gets cut by someone. Anyone cutting anyone who didn't deserve it (i.e., endangering the flight, etc) goes to jail for 10 years - no bullshit. Collect the knives upon disembarking.

    16) Remove the "extra column" of seats in all planes. Make the aisles wide enough so that 2 people can pass side by side... This will make planes load quicker, and allow for proper use of the overhead baggage compartment. If the plane is late by more than 15 minutes and it's not directly due to weather, the airline pays each affected passenger $500. Lost luggage: $1000 per piece lost/crushed... Misdirected luggage: $1000 per piece misdirected.

    17) Farm subsidies: Eliminate them for all but farme

  456. Nothing but leading! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't do anything well except for having a team of people from my cabinet. There would be 2 for each area each with different political views on the issue and I would inform them that if they started to truly hate each other one will be fired. So in effect I am only make the decisions and they are giving the choices. I would also listen to the public and see if it would be able to be worked into any of the plans.

  457. Renounce My Citizenship by mqduck · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't want to be a citizen of any nation that would elect me as its leader.

    --
    Property is theft.
  458. Anonymous for president! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A laptop for every nerd, RFID tag for every jock, vote Anonymous today!

    Note: Promises may not actually be fulfilled and/or may involve no-bid contracts to Anonymous owned laptop manufacturers.

  459. Dissolve the union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would ...
    Dissolve the union.
    Disarm the nation.
    Return the land to the original native inhabitants.
    Return everyone not native or mixed race (with natives) to Europe.
    Ask forgiveness to Africa, Asia, Polynesia, "South America/Latin America" and the other countries we've messed up and stole from.
    Return their riches and compensate everyone for the nations mistakes.
    Repent, repent and repent.

  460. Be the United Nations president by brettz9 · · Score: 1

    Call for a global summit to revamp the United Nations in order that it can be reformed and capable of gaining the trust of the world as it distributes necessary global policing work:

    1) Enable General Assembly decisions to be binding on nation-states (with certain limits to avoid over-centralization).
    2) Add a Peoples' Congress to the General Assembly to make the voting a bit more proportional to population (if you think people in countries like India are satisfied to trust the votes of the G.A. when they have 100,000 times less per capita voting power than the island-state of Tuvalu than I'll sell you bottled water...)
    3) Ensure that there are minimum standards for human rights in order for a country to even belong to the U.N. Its ridiculous to allow an unelected dictator (and no doubt an oppressive one at that) to get the vote of a whole nation.
    4) Abolish Security Council permanent membership (despite our having a veto, it doesn't do the U.N. which we need any good for credibility). The Articles of Confederation didn't work for us, so it's no wonder they haven't worked well for the world.
    5) Allow the International Court to arbitrate regardless of whether both nations agreed to submit their case to it. It'd be pretty silly for our own Supreme Court not to be able to vote unless both parties wanted to bring their case to it. Duh!

    and...

    agree on a global compact that ensures that:

    1) Disarmament is universal and internationally monitored (asking others to disarm is not only ridiculous when you haven't done so, but it doesn't encourage others to support your efforts to disarm others)
    2) Borders are fixed by international consensus and violators of a border (or who violate the disarmament agreement) will find their government completely destroyed by the whole international community. Preemptive strikes are quite legitimate and potentially effective when undertaken by an elected higher authority (like a police force raiding a place stockpiling dangerous weapons)--as opposed to depending on nation-state vigilantism.

    and

    Agree on a universal auxiliary language--make English a universal second (or third) language around the world (if countries like English as much as we think they do, that should be no problem, if they're allowed to vote on it), and if not, have a vote to consider a constructed or some other language (it's better than the current situation of citizenry and immigrants being expected to have the impossible task of learning a multiplicity of languages they weren't taught as children).

    and, while this one is probably the biggest long shot,

    Introduce a national referendum to consider abolishing political parties, campaigning, etc. (while keeping universal suffrage, secret ballot, etc.) Just as local governments don't need parties and the circus of campaigns or electioneering to function, neither does a national one. There'd be a whole lot more scientists elected if the system didn't depend on requiring a person to engage in that whole circus.

    1. Re:Be the United Nations president by Quila · · Score: 1

      1) Enable General Assembly decisions to be binding on nation-states (with certain limits to avoid over-centralization).
      That is dangerous with the current thinking of the UN. For one, they see the solution for pretty much anything to be to drain money from the successful nations and give it to the poorer ones -- and they're not good at recognizing which is which (except that they know the US is their money pot).

      They also would be able to enforce political correctness. Nothing could be muttered that would offend anyone in the world, except the Muslims would still be allowed to chant "Death to Israel" as they are an oppressed, protected class. It would be illegal to defend yourself against the violence committed by any such protected class.

      And then there's the problem where an individual country's constitution guarantees rights that would be violated by a UN decision.

      Ensure that there are minimum standards for human rights in order for a country to even belong to the U.N.
      Ain't that the truth. Now they put them on the human rights council. However, who decides who is oppressive? With the right maneuvering in the initial deciding round we could end up with the oppressive countries voting out the free countries as oppressive, especially since one of the most oppressive countries in the world would carry one quarter of the proportional vote you propose.
    2. Re:Be the United Nations president by brettz9 · · Score: 1

      Thank you...glad to receive a thoughtful reply...

      "That is dangerous with the current thinking of the UN. For one, they see..."

      You mean the current thinking of the UN bureaucracy or the rest of the whole world? The former has no power of its own, so its hard to speak of the U.N. as though its "us" and "them". It may seem to make sense to refer to "them" in the case of the bureaucracy of the U.N., but, (a) they have no power outside of that given to them by the nations that send them there, and (b) U.S. citizens are also heavily represented within U.N. bodies. Blaming the U.N. is really blaming ourselves.

      As an American and world citizen, I believe humanity is already capable of democracy even though I may disagree with some decisions, even though some governments might not be capable or interested in it (see my qualification you also refer to), and even if that means giving away some power (which the Founding Fathers realized the states needed to--and the U.S. did in more recent history by being part of the historic WTO). We can't have the cake and eat it too. We can believe in democracy, and believe it applies to humanity, or we can believe in selfishness and our own egos. It may take a lot, but we ought to be humble enough to admit that, despite what our pundits in the media would have us believe, we are not always right either. That doesn't mean giving away the house--on the contrary, we should be very intelligent in any sharing of power, so that it won't violate our own basic values; but the sharing of power is necessary not only for idealistic reasons in our belief in democracy--but also in practical reasons (no one can trust the U.N. if it is subject to the whims of just a handful of countries).

      "For one, they see the solution for pretty much anything to be to drain money from the successful nations and give it to the poorer ones -- and they're not good at recognizing which is which (except that they know the US is their money pot)."

      The U.S. pays only a tiny fraction of its economy to the U.N.--an institution which has had tremendous successes in a number of areas and which is absolutely vital, as all politicians will recognize even after rhetoric against the U.N. which may get them elected. Don't get drawn into a line politicians like to use to get elected. There are cases of corruption, sure, but that can only be blamed on the oversight of it my member states--and we're a very influential one of those members.

      Some good reading:

      "They also would be able to enforce political correctness. Nothing could be muttered that would offend anyone in the world,"

      I'd be in favor of people not offending others... I think our religious traditions (if you are religious) are all supposed to believe the same... This doesn't mean giving away rights though, nor does it mean avoiding a chance to speak up against rights violated by others elsewhere; allowing the world a qualified chance to vote in affairs determined by a body whose decisions affect it (in a real way--not the mere popularity contest which U.N. votes are now), is not, in my view, doing so...

      "except the Muslims would still be allowed to chant "Death to Israel" as they are an oppressed, protected class."

      Self-determination and respect for diversity over conformity are both part of the existing founding and operating documents of the current U.N. and would need to be so for a strengthened U.N. Certainly any reformed U.N. would and should not be consti

    3. Re:Be the United Nations president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't that the truth. Now they put them on the human rights council. However, who decides who is oppressive?

      Yes, the human rights council has had its great embarrassments, but I don't think that reflects the thinking of the majority of even currently nondemocratic countries. You should be aware that the U.N., despite certain failings, has despite some powerful member countries, been able to express opposition to violations from around the world.

      Again though, as our own world charter states in its preamble, it is "WE the peoples of the United Nations"... That includes us too! Think of it like this--you may belong to a certain city or state in the U.S. That doesn't mean you can't identify yourself as a U.S. citizen. So, why stop your patriotism at a man-made border, if you've already expanded it beyond your family, city, and state? People everywhere exist who abhor violence, but not everyone identifies with the U.S. As long as we think people who are proud of their own country don't already hold the same basic values as we do, we won't be able to unite with them by waving our national flag at them-- we need to identify ourselves increasingly (no matter where we come form), as proud world citizens--those who respect law, order, and justice, regardless of our country of citizenship/residence/origin (and there are quite a few from everywhere who do).

      With the right maneuvering in the initial deciding round we could end up with the oppressive countries voting out the free countries as oppressive, especially since one of the most oppressive countries in the world would carry one quarter of the proportional vote you propose.

      By the way, when I say "proportional vote", I don't mean one exactly proportional to the population of the world. That would not be tenable or just, given the need to protect the interests of smaller populated countries. Yet even in a somewhat more proportional system, the U.S. would actually do quite well, given our population...And while not suitable in the case of certain rights issues, even countries which have some abuse of human rights still reflect the will of their people to a fair degree and ought to have some voice, if not an overriding one.

      I might also add that, while I believe a vision for the future must lead to a real federated but sufficiently strong world government, it is true that it is not possible at present to rely wholly on a reconstituted U.N.--the U.N. is just one, albeit an essential part, of a progressively evolving international order which also depends on alliances of truly democratic countries. I envision a much greater enhancement and formalization of the relationship between the democratic countries of the U.S., Canada, Europe, Latin America, and some countries within Africa and Asia as time goes on. But this doesn't preclude us needing to allow voices from everywhere to be heard and respected now or that our vision should be stuck in the present.

  461. Only in America... by master_p · · Score: 1

    ...a post that proposes to demolish everything organized society stands for would be modded '4, interesting'...

  462. Presidential issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's get the important things sorted:

    1) Anyone who uses a mathematical or geometric term in a marketing campaign needs to get it right, or suffer public flogging. Example: Pyramid tea bags, grrr... they are tetrahedral!

    2) Mandatory jail sentences for people who don't use vehicle indicators to let other folks know what they are about to do.

    3) Women who wear tights will be banned. Stockings only. With lacy tops on them. And seams!

  463. Short and sweet platform by pontifier · · Score: 1

    1 Gather intelligent people with many viewpoints to debate important topics to help me steer the country.
    2 Demand open borders, and an offer citizenship to any person anywhere who wants to become a citizen.
    3 Push for a more modern penal system that promotes rehabilitation rather than punishment.
    4 Guarantee transparency in all other decision making process by making all meetings with advisors public.

    No other specific items that I can think of right now, but overall a platform that promotes competition, advancement, and long term thinking so that we can move one step closer to a legal and technological utopia.

    --
    -John Fenley
  464. President Sqreater by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Firstly, no one mentions the tone or spirit of the nation. Perceiving that we are now in a new millennium, and recognizing that Congress works in a museum and the President lives in one, as President I'd push new budgets that attempt to reign in the busy-tech spending of the scientific-industrial-complex (aka a trip to Mars) and spend money on updating the architecture of government to more accurately represent our current position as the most powerful democracy that has ever existed. Respect for our own accomplishments is justified and necessary if we are to have the forward looking thinking necessary to solve today's problems.

    We are so superior to the Greeks or Romans that I don't know why we still sit in their buildings. That means you Supreme Court. Come down to the people again. You are not British Lords either. Get off that high bench.

    Start building monuments to hope and the spirit of democracy and the people again. We seem to only build monuments and memorials to death and destruction now.

    As President, I'd try to bring the American people back to an understanding that we must all die sometime, that we are mortal, and that grubbing for the last minute of life at huge, even unlimited medical expense is not right because it will destroy the financial life of the nation, of generations to come. The 77 million or so baby boomers especially must be made to understand that a lifetime of work and sacrifice must be capped by this last sacrifice for the nation. We can never afford all the retirement and medical care we think we are owed. Politicians must stop promising it.

    As President, I'd point out strongly that we cannot allow ourselves to accept the calls to perfect protection from terrorism or criminality. No right, no freedom, no individuality can stand before the need for perfect security. We must understand that the price of freedom is not paid just on the battlefields of our nation's wars, but in our daily lives. Some of us will die for it. Some will be injured. That is the way it has to be. A courageous President would say so. He would not push for every right-destroying law or regulation that comes to mind in panic for a few lives. Save a few lives now, strip billions to come of rights and freedoms. It is not good stewardship.

    We need a World Military Council so that the major powers can sit together as military people in order to expose themselves to each other's thinking and thus perhaps head off the next, and perhaps final, war. Isolation of military leaders may be fatal. A kind of Military United Nations.

    As President I'd push strongly for the incorporation of technology into our political system. It is a great shame on us that we have not advanced our democratic thinking using technology. I think our political ancestors would be ashamed of us. Advance or stagnate. The last word on the philosophy of democracy was not uttered 200 years ago. The people are not a mob. Nothing we've done has shown that we are.

    During the current political struggle for the position of President of the United States we hear each candidate trying to make themselves appear an agent for change. I hear nothing new.

    Sqreater
    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  465. Peg gold, not rates ! by TM22721 · · Score: 0

    Direct the Federal Reserve to peg the price of gold, instead of interest rates. If the price of gold goes up, reduce the money supply. If it goes down, increase the money supply.

    That would encourage people to save again since inflation would be near zero.

    It would prevent politicians from spending money that we do not have.

    It would also prevent endless bubbles in real esate, stocks, and commodities.

  466. Multilateral Comprehensive Reform by Talderas · · Score: 1

    Let me approach my stances in a different manner.

    Economic/Immigration Reform:
    There are some serious issues with our economic systems, we have people performing jobs that they are being over-paid for, we have individuals who are unemployable. To complicate the problem is the existence of illegal immigrants who are staying past their Visa expiration date and showing no signs of attempting to integrate into American society. To solve this I would propose a multilateral approach to fix our economy. Mind you any one of these solutions implemented separated is not going to help the problem.

    1. Push for the eradication of the minimum wage. As it stands we have individuals who are unemployable at the current minimum wage. High school drop outs are the hardest hit by minimum wage as there is a limit on the number of service and manufacturing jobs that they can fill. Especially considering that less than 10% of legal Americans earning minimum are the sole provider for their family, this makes this a great approach.

    2. Push an agenda to reform welfare based on the eradication of the minimum wage. Now that individuals are able to earn an income rather than no income the pressure on the Federal government for tax money to fund welfare programs would be lessened.

    3. The lowering of minimum wage reduces the incentive for illegal immigrants to stay in our country, or even cross over. If they aren't going to earn much more than they would in Mexico, they aren't going to cross over.

    4. Step-up enforcement of national borders. It isn't fair to those who follow our immigration system to have illegals constantly crossing into our nation. Additionally, the border enforcement will help to catch potential terrorists coming into the country.

    5. Step-up enforcement of the deportation of illegals. Committing any crime (except that of being an illegal immigration) should be grounds for immediate deportation back to your home country with no chance of becoming a citizen here. Being caught as an illegal immigrant will require deportation in 1 month to allow you the chance to set whatever you need to straight to leave our country with the opportunity to later come back and apply for regular citizenship.

    6. Relax all the red-tape for certifying nuclear power plants. Considering we can convert coal into jet fuel it makes perfect sense to refocus our base-load energy supply from coal to nuclear. Less dependence on oil for jet fuel means less dependence on oil.

    7. Consequently provide incentives for oil companies to research low-environmental impact exploration and production drilling techniques. If they can demonstrate that they can do this, then open up the Alaskan oil fields to them. Between 6, 7 and the fact that Canada (who likes us still, I think), our dependency on middle eastern oil would take a huge dent.

    8. Provide incentives for companies to research fusion reactors.

    9. Start an initiative to reform our legal system. Our nation is one that is quick to litigate over minor stupid things.

    10. Find some way to punish restaurants that put a mandatory gratuity on the check. Screw you, I'm not going to pay 20% tip just because you say I should. I'm going to pay a 20% tip because the service was good. A server who fails to keep a drink full, or pretty much ignores a table doesn't deserve a 20% tip.

    11. Push Yucca Mountain. Having a secure nuclear waste depository will make certifying and building nuclear power plants less of a hassle.

    Terrorism and all things Foreign:
    Terrorism is a problem, whether you want to accept it or not. Islamo-facists, Islamic Extremists, or whatever you want to call them do want to see America destroyed. This is due to the personal liberties we afford people, not based on whatever foreign interaction we may have had. Consequently, another multi-lateral approach would help with this.

    1. Push for legislation granting immunity to anyone reporting suspicious behavior. The flying Imam incident is a prime example of why people

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  467. Re:Top 10 List by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    My top 10 list is more of issues to be addressed rather than specific actions to be taken: 1. Global warming and the environment. There are billions of dollars worth of real estate that are going to be underwater on the US coastline in about 50 years. The official estimates still say around 100 years, but every time I turn around, the current state of global warming is that it's happening faster than we expected. We have to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP, and possibly begin funding dikes around metropolitan areas. Mass transit also needs to be a component, once we convince people outside the northeast and Chicago that it isn't a lower-class phenomenon. 2. The poisonous atmosphere in Washington and in the political media. Not much a president can do about this other than lead by example. 3. Iraq - Needs a cold, hard, non-partisan look coupled with a dose of "if you break it, you buy it". I can't endorse the blind following of reprehensible Bush administration policies, nor can I endorse withdrawing from Iraq without restoring some level of order there. If we're lucky, the violence will settle down now that the initial blood-bath is over. But the Middle East is not a region known for letting go of old grudges. 4. The Federal budget - End the exclusion of military spending from the deficit calculations. We NEED some new taxes (or some old ones like the estate tax restored) to pay this off. I'd rather be "tax and spend" rather than "spend and go bankrupt". 5. The "war on terror" - start the process of reconciling ourselves with the international community. The neo-Con philosophy that the US can do whatever the hell it wants is completely discredited now. 6. Insurance of various types - "Insurance" has traditionally been a form of protection against statistically rare events. Health coverage doesn't really qualify as insurance now that so much of it is preventative or long-term. Natural disasters of all types should be covered in a national pool. Every region of the country has one or more types of natural disaster that is more prevalent in that area than in other parts of the country. Pooling the risks for hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, mudslides and earthquakes, sinkholes, floods and other "acts of god" on a national basis in a single program makes sense. 7. Immigration - apart from the question of how to handle the illegals, we need to boost legal immigration for two big reasons: 1) to better balance our labor costs with the global market (although no politician can say that) and avoid cross-border job losses, and 2) to get "all those damn furriners takin' our jobs" to at least be paying U.S. taxes, rather than Indian or Chinese taxes. 8. Social Security and Medicare - We need more workers (another reason to increase immigration), we need to remove the taxation cap, and we need to pay a little bit less out in retirement benefits. We need to roll Medicare into a more universal coverage system where the premiums for the healthier, younger folks help offset the costs for the elderly. 9. Corporate and Securities Law - There are several issues underlying the weirdness in the economy over the past decade. The disconnect between ownership and management of corporations has become too great. In the financial industry is it time to decouple the insurers from the brokerages and both of those from the banks again? The concentration of power in this industry is at least as dangerous to a free society as the concentration of power in the media. These guys have proven (yet again) that they can't control their greed, and it's too easy for them to bring the whole economy down. And yes, we need some new usury laws. 10. Legalize it: curtail the war on drugs to only target those drugs that cause near-term physical harm. Stuff that literally kills you or renders you incapacitated in a year or three. Stuff that's physically addictive on the order of heroin or morphine would probably qualify as illegal, but not marijuana and possibly some forms of cocaine, hallucinogens like LSD and others.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  468. US position is hypocritical by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You could stop illegal immigration. Everybody in the places where it happens know the where the crossing points are, the way it works (I am tired of seeing documentaries following immigrants crossing the border) and the places where the immigrants get employment (look! meat processing factory, 90% are Hispanic, should we check?)

    But when President Fox of Mexico offered to have a free movement agreement between citizens of the US and Mexico, then US legislators stall any possibility of progress.

    The question is: why? Cheap, free immigration (as in no need to ask permission to relocate) has worked wonders for the countries in the EU where the host country (places like the UK, Germany and France) got workers badly needed in many areas (the skills of polish plumbers are now legendary all around the EU) while poor countries benefited in many ways: young people found a way to a better way of life, the local economy was invigorated by money sent from abroad.

    Contrary to what the scaremongers predicted (a flood of immigration from countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece) what happened is that the poor countries became more prosperous (with the help of infrastructure projects financed by the EU) and guess what, we don't have millions of Spanish or Portuguese in the UK, as a matter of fact many go back home (Ireland being the most salient example).

    But politicians in the US, supported in great measure by an ignorant, fearful electorate, prefer to legislate exploitation instead of cooperation: cheap labour with no rights that can be kicked out at the drop of a hat. The inhumane deportations of parents that have to leave behind their families after many years of enforced illegality is something that should hurt any decent person.

    Most people in the US talk all this nonsense about letting capitalism work its wonders, unless of course you are in a competitive disadvantage, in which case it is OK to exploit people and put walls and fences half heartedly that remind you more of oppressive East European regimes rather than a country blabbing all around the world about freedom.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:US position is hypocritical by ivano · · Score: 1

      Excellent post. A lot of Americans think that people cross borders just to have "a better life", but in reality they are enticed here to work in the fields and jobs (that the companies doing the enticing) that don't pay minimum wage. If you get rid of these companies or force them to pay an "American wage" you'll soon see the number of illegals dropping - you'll also see the soccer mums protesting on the streets about why their strawberries cost so much and how she now has to actually pay for a real cleaner. Illegal immigration is an American problem not a Mexican. Clean up your own backyard and it'll go away.

    2. Re:US position is hypocritical by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I would like to buy your line of reasoning, but you say nothing about the economic effect on the bigger countries about the GNP drain of the Polish plumbers sending the cash home.
      Lack of a fully rounded argument makes the post as a whole rather suspect.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  469. Stuff I would do... by groffg · · Score: 1
    • Establish new free trade agreements (FTAs), including regional FTAs, if possible
    • Create a department that specifically handles post-war rebuilding operations; some funding currently going to DOD would be diverted to this department
    • Phase out agricultural subsidies
    • Reform Social Security and Medicare via partial privatization
    • Attempt to gain line item veto in overall attempt to reduce wasteful "pork" spending
    • Establish proactive diplomatic relationship with Iran, reversing the ineffectual "isolate Iran" strategy
    • Encourage free-market capitalism in non-developed countries (in part, via my 1st point above, regarding FTAs)
    • ...
  470. if I were president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll tell you what I'd do! Two girls at one time, thats what I'd do!

  471. What Would You Do As President? by ZHaDoom · · Score: 1

    The same thing we do every night, Pinky.

    --
    War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
  472. Why not? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    At the very least Mexicans yes, we should, for one reason: economics is telling you that doing otherwise is complete nonsense.

    As a matter of fact people wanting to keep the US more Anglo Saxon than Hispanic should ponder this: most Mexicans would never change their nationality if we could come and go as we pleased. Mexicans opting to obtain a US passport do so for pragmatic reasons, not because they really want to.

    If you believe in human freedom there is no possible argument about curtailing freedom of movement. Soviets did it, communists still do it, fascists did it, why should democracies do it? That does not mean you would lose control of your borders, you could still have enough controls in place to know where people are if you need to know such thing as a country.

    That the US is so reluctant to lead the way in this matter is incomprehensible. You have mores space than the EU, you are built from pretty much uncontrolled immigration in the 18th and 19th centuries but still the place leading the way is the EU where bar stubborn countries like the UK, you have pretty much freedom to live whereever you think life is going to be better for you (from Polish plumbers relocating to Germany and the UK to UK pensioners moving to Spain and Greece).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Why not? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Economics isn't really entering into anything, because the Mexicans that come here and work illegally are also getting paid wages below the legal limit. In other words, they're undermining what society has decided is minium fair wage, and hurting actual citizens in the process.

      Not even Jefferson supported completely unrestricted immigration (don't confuse movement with immigration). Jefferson realized that an uncontroled influx of people, especially if they did not ADAPT would undermine and harm the country.

      What right to Mexicans have to cross into our territory and undermine our values and freedoms, which is what they do when they do not adapt and conform. See my other post for a link on some of Jefferson's thoughts on immigration.

  473. How does illegal immigration damage economy? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You have a group of people that do work that otherwise would be not done, that claim no social benefits of any kind and pay taxes without ever getting anything in return and spend big chunks of their earnings in the local economy. What a bloody damage you have got there.

    Many agricultural businesses would be out of business if it wasn't for illegal immigration.

    Many people argue that they drive salaries down, but that is a self inflicted wound: the moment they were legal they would have to be paid the same as any other worker, and in that moment competence and skill would become the important factors to get a job.

    US people are simply scared shitless of competition, even when in reality most of them would never ever have to compete for a job with a lowly educated, unskilled Mexican person.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:How does illegal immigration damage economy? by xshader · · Score: 1

      Nope, you are wrong. It is basic supply and demand. If we did not have this illegal immagrant issue those kinds of jobs would have to simply pay more to get people to do them. You claim no harm done, however the lower class people are the ones that really suffer from this by keeping their wages low. Yes, the people hiring them would suffer, but if they can not compete without paying illegal immagrants, then they should go out of buisness. Doing buisness illegally isn't the answer here.

      If you are claming that we are scared because of some competition, but this is not the issue. If you want to compete, don't do it illegally, come out and compete, don't steal.

  474. Self defense? Survival? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Yeah, all those tomato pickers, toilet cleaners and burger flippers hailing from Mexico are a threat to the US's national security.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Self defense? Survival? by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 1
      We were speaking theoretically about why borders are necessary for the protection of nation states. If understanding abstract arguments is beyond your capabilities then nothing I can say will give you the ability to understand.

      As to your specific statement, yes they can become a threat in large enough numbers. You provided part of the answer in your own flippant statement. Massive numbers of uneducated 3rd world workers taking up permanent residence in a 1st world nation will change that nation. It can be for the better or for the worse, but it will bring change. If they remain uneducated then they will eventually be a drain on that country. If they are given access to welfare and other tax-payer support without paying into that system then they can bankrupt that nation. If they always send their earning outside of that country then capital drain will result. If they never become citizens and become a permanent underclass then a caste system will form that is totally at odds with American values. Such a system is counter enough to our own beliefs that it would destroy us. If they get the right to vote but never come to think of themselves as 'Americans' then that too will be a great threat to the nation. If they truly come to identify themselves as 'American' then there's no big problem. They'll change America, but it will still retain it's identity.

      Just so there is no misunderstandings here - I am for very large scale immigration from Mexico. I think immigration of hungry (not necessarily physically, but mentally) and ambitious people has always been the lifeblood of America. Such immigrants will be burger flippers today, businessmen and inventers tomorrow. However they must become Americans, not migrant workers in a foreign land, or it can greatly damage us.

  475. Immigrants are being invited. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    By their respective employers.

    Paranoid politicians (of which a few are later found to use illegal immigrants themselves) have made their business to stop such healthy economic (and dare I say cultural) exchange.

    The people in the US are clearly saying they need far more immigrants than what the government is prepared to let in (otherwise they would not be risking breaking the law themselves), but as we all know the US Federal Government is bought by interests not by democratic needs.

    Your country could perfectly afford mass immigration. It is fundamentally empty in many places, all opposition is borne from racism pure and simple.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Immigrants are being invited. by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Your country could perfectly afford mass immigration. It is fundamentally empty in many places, all opposition is borne from racism pure and simple.

      Using the word "all" is pretty strong. My father-in-law immigrated from Korea in the 1970s, and he is one on the most staunch people against illegal immigration. Are you saying that he's a racist immigrant hater?

      The problem with affording illegal immigrants is that these immigrants are not going to just move to the wide open plains of Kansas. They are going to move where there are jobs. And being illegal residents, they are likely getting paid under the table, not contributing to the tax base. Yet the enjoy the services that legal residents' tax dollars pay for.

      I am pro-immigration. As I alluded to, my wife would never have been in this country if it wasn't for immigration. But I think a government has a right to dictate the process by which people enter its borders. Furthermore, I think that a country that is a magnet for others - like the US - can afford to be very selective on the types of people it wants to invite. Namely, we should strive to attract the brightest and most experienced and hardest working individuals because it benefits our nation the best. Yet our immigration policy today is very screwy - we basically use whether a person has existing family in the country as one of the main factors in determining whether to grant entry. So say I have an uncle-in-law in Korea who's always broke and is a drunk. He has a better chance of getting a green card than his neighbor, who has no relatives in the US, but is a diligent and hard working lab technician. Bleh.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

  476. Oblig Pinky and The Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you, I needed that

  477. If I were President... by rclandrum · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm not female, so that let's me out of being the NEXT president, but assuming I make it eventually:

    1. Pull our troops back to the oil fields, send in the tankers, and start pumping it into our ships until there isn't anything left. Once that is done, we leave and let them eat sand.
    br> 2. If we are ever attacked again, pick any mideast country at random and nuke it. Once no lifeforms remain, send in the troops and see #1. Repeat as needed.

    3. Put teeth in laws protecting freedom of religion by making it a Federal offense to attempt to impose your religious beliefs on another citizen in any way whatsoever. This protects minority believers from the tyranny of the religous establishment. Intelligent Design? Illegal to espouse. Religious ads? Illegal to espouse. Worshipping in church? No problem.

    4. Reaffirm the President as Commander in Chief. However, sending our troops anywhere outside the US is an automatic declaration of war and automatically activates the draft - and ALL able-bodied citizens must register and are eligible, including females.

    5. Want to vote? Perform some type of Federal Service, including military, peace corps or equivalent. Yes, this is EXACTLY what Heinlein suggested in Starship Troopers.

    6. Find a way to nationalize health care. Suggestion: guarantee a job for life for anyone that becomes a physician with a decent salary and the government pays for your entire education.

    7. Introduce legislation that makes any substance people care to snort, smoke, inject, or swallow legal to possess and consume with appropriate taxes based on the impact to society, and appropriate FDA warnings on the bad stuff.

    8. Heavily fund research into small-scale nuclear reactor development and begin a program of aggressive expansion.

    9. Set immigration quotas for countries based on the amount of US goods they purchase. Regardless of quotas, anyone at all may obtain the right to immigrate by purchasing a legal, off-quota visa at a fixed price, which is adjusted monthly based on demand.

    10. Celebrate one of our chief assets - our incredible inventiveness. Hold an annual inventor's fair where individuals or teams present their ideas or actual working stuff. The winners not only get a cash prize, but also get free government assistance to promote and develop the invention.

  478. Get back in the lead by cowtamer · · Score: 1

    0) Make sure the Bill of Rights is respected (also applies to the ideas below).

    0.5) Re-define 'Patriotism' to mean caring about your country not just 2 but 20 and 200 years into the future.

    1) Overhaul the educational system by
        a) Increasing K-12 teacher salaries to 90-200K range, then recruiting teachers from top research schools/industries
        b) Encourage competition among teachers by firing all those who do not pass regularly administered tests in their area or whose students perform below the 60th percentile (compared to their school district or immediate area)
        c) Making it patriotic to care about education
        d) Increase funding for science fairs, math contests, etc.
        e) Implement meaningful school choice (without funding religious education with state money)

    2) Create several (preferarbly secret and independent) Manhattan-project style programs to solve the gravest problems we face. If appropriate, give huge tax breaks to corporations who succeed in these areas instead.

      a) Clean power generation (algal biomass, wind, fusion, solar, etc.)
      b) Environmental pollution (including greenhouse gases, carcinogenic chemicals, etc)
      c) Transportation (including more efficient cars, more efficient civilian air transport, personal air vehicles)
      d) Geriatric care
      e) Cancer/AIDS/Alzheimers/etc.

    3) Renew USA's commitment to the space program. Give NASA renewed direction (colonize the moon and beyond in 10 years), 10x the funding (still small compared to some other things), and get rid of 90% of the projects/bureaucrats who do not add anything to do space program (new document management systems, IT frameworks, etc.)

    4) Give our enemies no reason to hate us (i.e., pull out of unwise engagements, enter into wiser engagements when required, etc.).
      a) Increase the scope and activities of the Peace Corps
      b) Increase closely-monitored foreign aid to unstable nations that need it. Use it as leverage to push democratic ideals.

    5) Fight the war on drugs for real while balancing civil liberties
      a) Leave "responsible" adult users alone so long as they do not propagate the problem.
      b) Make it a capital offense provide drugs to a minor, and prosecute accordingly (i.e., get the dealers off the streets for good. Perhaps offer amnesty for enrolling in the military, etc.).
      c) Cut off supply lines by securing borders
      d) Provide treatment to anyone who needs it.

    6) Investigate and prosecute frivilous government spending. Consistenly and veto any legislation containing "pork" no matter which party it comes from

    7) Create a healthcare security net that complements the current system. Get the smartest advisors I can find to tackle this problem

    8) Balance the budget. (Increase taxes on super-rich individuals, temper military spending, cut pork)

    9) Repeal the DMCA (obligatory for /.)

  479. What I would do... by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    Even though this'll never be read except by the most bored of /.ers being 4 pages deep, here goes (in no particular order)

    - Tax churches
    - End subsidies to oil industry
    - Cut off support to Israel (Jewish terrorists are better than Islamic how?)
    - Get rid of PATRIOT Act, DMCA, any other bullshit designed to curtail freedom or give handouts to corporations
    - Outlaw lobbyists
    - Restore line-item veto
    - Push Congressional term limits
    - Fire every previous appointee
    - Discontinue tax cuts to wealthy, close tax code loopholes that only the top 1% can get away with
    - Redistribute "old" money (you can't take it with you, and your useless bastard kids don't deserve it)
    - Restore government accountability and credibility (vague, I know, but it needs to happen)
    - Use money wasted in war on drugs to expand treatment and rehab, decriminalize illegal drugs, pardon all nonviolent drug convictions
    - Cut military spending by 20% and dump it into education, research, NASA, NSF, etc.

    That's probably enough to get voted out after 1 term.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  480. Test the theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Test the constitional theory that it is possible for a sitting president to grant HIMSELF a presidential pardon.
    And if it works, abuse the hell out of the office.

  481. Hell no to Kyoto by Quila · · Score: 1

    Kyoto wasn't an environmental treaty. It was a wealth distribution scheme. This concept was also at the core of the recent Bali meeting. A quote from there:

    "A response to climate change must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."

    To be truly about the environment, any treaty must have at its heart the environment and be devoid of other causes and ideologies.

  482. What I would do... by hittman007 · · Score: 2, Funny
    In no particular order here is what I would do:

    1) I would help send forth the powers of capitalism with more tax cuts.
    It seems every time our taxes are cut within a year the economy gets stronger. This strength remains with the economy for years. There also gets to be fewer and fewer among the unemployed, and the wages of the working class person go up. As a side effect this also lets companies put more into research and development and produce better products and sell them for less money.

    2) I would stop payments of federal monies to any educational institution who refused to have our military come and recruit.
    The money given is a privilege not a right. The military organizations are responsible for the defence of this country, and throughout our history have done a great job. Without them we would not enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted. To openly deny them the chance to talk to potential volunteers only hurts our country further.

    3) I would withdraw any monies that we freely give to any country who's leaders openly hate us.
    We are part of the most generous nation and have done more good for others than any in the history of the planet. No nation has ever given away so much to so many other nations that open hate us. This funding should be cut off until suck time that the countries we freely give our money at least hide their hate.
    3a) I would withdraw from the United Nations.
    This organization has accomplished nothing that is worthwhile in recent times. Since the US won the cold war, and even before that it has done little to no good. Virtually all off the members hate us and actively try to drag us down and limit us.

    4) I would invest in education, but not just with money.
    Throwing money at the education problem has yet to fix it or even make it better. I would have standards that are required to be maintained. Students of a certain grade level will be expected to know such and such material, and if enough in a class don't the teacher would be held responsible. This is of utmost importance as every citizen of this country should have an equal opportunity at whatever it is they want to do.

    5) I would shut down the border to stop the flow of people breaking our laws by entering our country without going through the proper channels.
    5a) I would also withhold any federal money to any state or city that openly violates federal law and allows illegal immigrants to stay there.
    5b) I would institute stiff federal fines for any company that hires any illegal immigrant.
    5c) I would seek an amendment to the constitution that would make the children of illegal immigrants not US citizens.
    I am not against immigration, I am against illegal immigration. I am also not a racist (although from the stand that I have taken on this issue many of you will automatically think I am no matter what I say). There have been many problems in regard to these issues, and some say that these people are a necessity in todays world. If it is such a necessity (which I personally don't believe) then come up with a program where we can issue greencards, and do background checks on the people coming in.

    6) I would continue taking the war on terror to the enemy.
    Terrorism is the biggest external threat to our nation today. I would actively oppose it with the use of intelligence, economic pressure, international pressure via our allies, and even military force if need be. I would maintain a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan until they can handle their own defence. To leave these two theaters of war before they can defend themselves would be asking for terrorist regimes to attack them and attempt to take control again. The people in both countries are better off now than they were before, and we need to fight to let them be better of under their own governments.

    7) I would actively fight to remedy and prevent obvious failures.
    7a) Universal Health Care.
    This has been tried by many other

    --
    --- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?
  483. The line is drawn in national borders. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Saddam Hussein was smacked down when he attacked his neighbors (well, not quite, Mr Rumsfeld and Co. were quite pleased when he attacked Iran).

    He was contained to his borders and was harming nobody but his people (this was regrettable, but was at least contained and by no means the widespread bloodbath we are witnessing. In any case if his actions would have been disgraceful enough internal opposition could have been supported, such people would have enjoyed a degree of legitimacy that the current Iraq leaders just can't ever dream to have, instead the incipient opposition was abandoned and easily crushed by the dictator).

    The UN charter is pretty clear about this, and the US (and UK) are signatories, but they chose to ignore it whenever it suits them, no wonder they have made so many real and gratuitous enemies....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:The line is drawn in national borders. by ricegf · · Score: 1

      Saddam Hussein was smacked down when he attacked his neighbors (well, not quite, Mr Rumsfeld and Co. were quite pleased when he attacked Iran).

      Well, to be clear, he was smacked down when he attacked (and conquered) our ally, Kuwait. We were invited to intervene when the ousted Kuwait government was joined by the Saudis in requesting our help. Iran, needless to say, never asked for our help. :-)

      Nor was Saddam's army some wimpy third world force back then. To paraphrase Jay Leno, his army went from being the fourth largest in the world to the fifth largest... in Iraq. :-)

      He was contained to his borders and was harming nobody but his people

      Well, he was actually firing surface to air missiles at allied aircraft on a fairly regular basis, which was itself a violation of the cease fire from the first Gulf War. But since he was firing in impotence with little chance of hitting anything, a snicker would have been a more appropriate response than another smack down. Which is probably why "violation of the cease fire" wasn't the justification used for the second Gulf War.

  484. Stop Drinkin' the Right Wing Kool-aid by srobert · · Score: 1

    Man, You're brain has been thoroughly washed. Please change the radio station and listen to some music. And believe me when I tell you this: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O, Michael Savage, etc. are idiots.

    1. Re:Stop Drinkin' the Right Wing Kool-aid by hittman007 · · Score: 1

      I love it when people make assumptions about me or the stuff I say. In doing so so many people show their true selves. But hey, at least you said please, thats better then most...

      If I am drinking so much Kool-Aid back it up and prove it. At least there is substance to what I have to say, rather then a blind attack based on a point of view and no evidence. I have put years of observations into my world view. While doing this I have strived to separate my wants and needs and assumptions about what is happening and get to the truth. From here I ask why and what if many times, and try to answer based on my observations.

      BTW who is Michael Savage? I know who Rush Limbaugh and Bill Oreily are, they have radio talk shoes on during a part of the day that I am working and cannot listen. Would be nice to have a chance to sit back and listen to them and make my own decision about what they are saying...

      If they say why they support their conclusions I will likely respect them more than I respect you, simply because they have a reason. Respect isn't earned by me based on what you believe, but why you believe it. I love to get into debates with people I disagree with that actually put forth why they believe how they believe. Odds are both sides of a discussion can learn from the other...

      Anyway, if you want any respect from me I need more depth in your reply.

      --
      --- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?
  485. Western civilization is the best thing . EVAR! by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Fascism. Yep.
    Communism. Yep.
    Final solution. Yep.
    Ethnic cleansing (lets be fair, it was only perfected ). Yep.
    WMDs. Yep. Brownie points for using them on civilians first.
    Colonialism. Yep.
    Apartheid. Yep.

    No question about it, Western Civilization is such a wonderful thing.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  486. I would: by sporkums · · Score: 1

    Balance the budget to help our economy and currency by: -getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan -radically reducing military spending -cutting unnecessary aid to Israel, who just uses the money to subvert the Palestinian population and bully it's neighbors -Eliminating ridiculous corporate tax loopholes -raise taxes on the wealthiest Improve environmental regulation and create better incentives for green energy/transportation.

  487. Health care is Interstate Commerce? by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

    How do you figure? There's no way nationalized health care is Interstate Commerce. That clause has been abused so badly the only way forward is to repeal it, followed by all the laws that were foisted upon the public using it.
    Health care should Definitely not be a national issue, but a state issue. I'm not even sure it should be funded by taxes. Do you really want to get stuck in the position of having really awful health care and not having the money or power to fix the problem?
    National health care takes power away from the people. It removes their ability to choose who cares for them.

    --
    They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
  488. OrangeTide needs to get laid! by SimHacker · · Score: 1

    Hey, how's that Objective C and Haskell code going?

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    1. Re:OrangeTide needs to get laid! by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Rewriting it in FORTH now, like you recommended when you contacted my privately in email like a stalker.

      Going to violate GPL and just make Micropolis/SimCity into my own ShareWare. So you can't criticize all the bugs that were added when I rewrote it in another language.

      Feel free to stop contacting me outside of slashdot like a nutjob.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:OrangeTide needs to get laid! by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      Jonathan Mayo: get your facts straight, and work on your reading comprehension. I never recommended you rewrite anything in Forth. I just mentioned OpenFirmware, which you mentioned on your resume, and that I worked with 20 years ago. I think it's interesting that we both know Forth. (forth ?know if honk else forth learn then). But I never suggested rewriting Micropolis in it!

      You're really flying off the handle, accusing me of stalking: You wouldn't answer any of my questions on Slashdot, and you kept attacking me with bullshit, so I contacted you privately via email, where you kept on attacking me. What's so hard about punching "OrangeTide" into google? Your web site, www.orangetide.com: OrangeTide's Home Page is the first result. Your resume is the first link on that page. Your name, Jonathan Mayo, is written in big header text on that page, along with your home address in lovely San Jose, and your home and cell phone number and email address: jon.mayo@gmail.com. Your resume says you work for VMWare, and have worked for Cisco, Agami, Pillar Data Systems, Pioneer Research of America, DirectTV and Sparta Area School Systems. Did you publish all that information yourself, or did somebody else put up a fake resume under your name?

      Why do you presume to act like you expect to be anonymous, if you use the exact same handle of slashdot as the name of your web page, and you publish your real name, address, email, and phone numbers on your resume on that web site? You're the one who chose the name of your slashdot user to be the same as the name as your web site, and put all that personal information up on your web site.

      If you're trying to be anonymous on slashdot, and offended that I sent your personal email asking "What's your problem on slashdot?", then you've totally failed, and you're a complete idiot. Haven't you ever heard of google? Are you surprised it was so easy for me to look up all that personal information about you that YOU yourself publicly published, simply by typing "OrangeTide" into google?

      Why did you publish all that personal information, if you don't want anyone knowing it or contacting you? You have pretty thin skin! Your slashdot profile doesn't say "Don't contact me" -- it just says "I hate slashdot". What's wrong with me sending you email to the address you published on your web site with the same name as your slashdot handle? You're the one acting like a nutjob for all to see, so I contacted you about it, to ask what your problem was. Do you really want me to discuss your behavioral problems in front of everyone instead of sending you personal email? Apparently so, therefore that's what I'm doing now, instead of keeping it private!

      If it was so easy for me to punch your slashdot handle into Google, and get your real name, email address, home address and phone number, do you really think potential employers won't google for your name and read what you've written on slashdot? You should be more careful about making a total fool out of yourself on slashdot, because it might come up in a job interview (or you might never get that job interview in the first place, with anyone who's read what you've posted, because your postings are extremely foolish). Anyone can read your posting history to see what a frustrated dork you are.

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  489. At my first State of the Union speech by robert899 · · Score: 1

    After thunderous applause upon my entry, I'd tell Congress to go fuck themselves. Then I'd quickly say the state of the union stinks to fulfill my constitutional obligations and walk out (quickly).

  490. Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember that if you go with Ron Paul you will also be overturning Roe v Wade and getting rid of the separation of church and state. Add to that the elimination of the Federal Education Board and the south is looking pretty grim.

  491. Things I would do by AaronW · · Score: 1

    1. Repeal laws that deal with people's private lives if it doesn't affect anybody else. You can't legislate all morality. Note that this would not affect laws where a person's actions negatively affect those around them.
    2. Invest more money in the NSF and DOE emphasizing alternative energy sources and better energy efficiency.
    3. Repeal the ethanol corn subsidy and tax it like any other fuel. Encourage better solutions.
    4. Encourage more nuclear power. Repeal Carter's executive order banning breeder reactors and fund research and development for them to deal with wastes and provide a long term fuel source.
    5. Invest in education to make college more affordable. It's a great investment that pays for itself in the long term.
    6. Re-adjust taxes to lower the burden the middle class pays and increase it on the top 5% and especially the top 1%.
    7. Increase funding for middle and high schools, especially in subjects like science and math. Use the money to train more teachers in these subjects.
    8. Clean up the corporations are people. Make them more responsible for their actions.
    9. Clean up copyright law. Cut it back to the original 20 years but allow it to be renewed by paying a fee. The longer it is renewed, the higher the fee.
    10. Clean up patent law so obvious patents can no longer be filed and help overturn previous ones.
    11. Offer an alternative government not-for-profit government insurance program with rates adjusted based on income. Mandate that everyone must have insurance unless they specifically opt-out.
    12. Make it easier for students to get college loans especially if they apply for fields in science and medicine.
    13. Clean up immigration. Bring back the old guest worker program where immigrants can come in to pick crops and return home to their native countries after the season. When this was dropped they brought their entire families in and stayed.
    14. Make it easier for foreign students to come in to the country to get an education in science and technology.
    15. Repeal the every child left behind act.
    16. Bring back trade schools.
    17. Ease censorship laws on TV across the board.
    18. Drop politically popular programs if there is no scientific basis that they work (i.e. abstinence only sex-ed).
    19. Start withdrawing from Iraq and re-deploy in Afghanistan.
    20. Move support away from outside corporations for the military and do more internally to save money.
    21. Increase funding for NASA for research missions and for new technology.
    22. Improve transportation and encourage high speed rail.
    23. Replace the DHS and a lot of the stupid rules (i.e. TSA). Base policies on scientific research and not feel-good political policies.
    24. Appoint qualified experienced people to be in charge of all departments over political friends.
    25. No more signing statements. The executive branch is subject to the same laws as everyone else.
    26. Make government more open. No more secret meetings on key issues with industry lobbyist.
    27. Promote government use of open standards and OSS. Encourage development of OSS software to meet government needs to save taxpayer money.
    28. Promote network neutrality.
    29. Clean up the FCC to make it more friendly to the public and encourage open use of the spectrum.
    30. Increase taxes on corporations who move their headquarters off-shore.
    31. Tax outsourced jobs.
    32. Use the money from the above taxes to promote training of US citizens for the positions most needed.
    33. Work to make the budget balanced. Veto laws that have pork in them.
    34. Veto laws that do not make much sense.
    35. Repeal the DMCA.
    36. Promote fair use.
    37. Reduce the war on drugs. Legalize marijuana and other drugs known to not be very harmful or addictive. Tax as needed. Allow hemp to be grown.
    38. Promote use of solar, wind and other technologies through tax cuts and subsidies. Tax carbon to help pay for it.
    39. Encourage research into new battery technology and infrastructure for electric vehicles.
    40. Work to be co

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  492. Restore the Constitution by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    From my views:
    # A constitutional amendment to guarantee government transparency. This should include forcing the government to announce suspension of any civil liberties during war time. (more on this below) Violation of this amendment would be a high crime. Acknowledging that some information may be highly classified, a 12 member bipartison committee would be formed by the Congress and given top clearances. This committee would advise Congress on classified matters.
    # A constitutional amendment more clearly defining the roles of the members of the executive branch. No more of this crap about the VP claiming to be a member of Congress to avoid executive branch investigations.
    # A constitutional amendment requiring that the president provide full access to intelligence and an exit strategy to Congress as part of the request to go to war. This exit strategy can be delayed twice, for 2 weeks each time, but must include plans for control of infrastructure, preservation of services, restoration of order, supplies to population, restoration of government, commencement of diplomatic relations, retraction of military presence, all with milestones and acceptable timeframes. This same amendment should require that Congress draft rules for how to handle the case for war, eg. requiring corroborating evidence from outside intelligence bodies, expedited investigations into budget and preparation concerns, failure of authorization if critical data is found to be fraudulent, etc. Requests for war authorization would cause all other legislation to be put on hold, and Congress would have 30 days to consider the case. This would not prevent the president from
    # By constitutional amendment, the president would have to request the authority to suspend the people's civil liberties, even in times of war. The president would have to specifically state how those liberties would be trespassed, and for how long. He could not deviate from that plan. Violation of this amendment would be a high crime.
    # The president's power to dissolve Congress shall be moved, by constitutional amendment, to the Supreme Court, and would require a 2/3rds vote of that body, followed by the signature of the president.
    # By constitutional amendment, executive orders will require immediate review by the Supreme Court before being put into force. If the EO deals with classified information, the Congressional committee that deals with classified information will review the EO and advise the Supreme Court.
    # By constitutional amendment, signing statements may clarify points in the law but may not redefine the law or negate the law or signify a resistance to enforcing the law.
    # By constitutional amendment, the Senate shall have the power to subpoena members of the presidential cabinet and advisors, including the president and the vice president. Failure to appear would be a high crime. All appearing persons will be placed under oath. Perjury is already a high crime.
    # Terminate the domestic wiretapping program.
    # Terminate the "sneak and peek" program.
    # Terminate the Iraq war authority.
    # By law, limit the number of people reached by the media holdings of any one individual or group.
    # By law, keep the Internet free of taxation on communications. The only tax on the Internet should be sales tax, the only limit on bandwidth should be the physical limits of the infrastructure and the contractual agreements with the consumers.

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  493. epic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    epic trolling OT!

    Love,
    #c

    1. Re:epic by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      Apparently Jonathan Mayo can dish it out, but he can't take it. :)

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  494. off to Don Hopkins' Web Site by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    (wasn't sure to post this in the original thread, or this new one Don started in the wrong place in his frenzied state)

    1. My RL identity is no secret. In fact on IRC my "realname" is (usually) my real name. I never assumed I was anonymous.
    2. Only my mother calls me Jonathan.
    3. I regret nothing I've said to you on these threads. So being traced back to me is not a problem. (I was not crass about it)
    4. I misspoke when I said rewrite in C++, I mean rewrite in ObjC. And when I said I was rewriting it in FORTH, "like you recommended" I meant like you recommend I rewrite it. You couldn't decide if I should do Haskell or ObjC. So I brought up FORTH. (chuck's company is in the same building as me)
    5. Posting my personal information in a slashdot post is considered in poor taste. cross posting flames and emails is normally considered stalkerish. but I don't particularly care at this point. (Obviously if you decide to leave me voice mails or visit me in person it would force me in a position that neither of us would relish)
    6. by rhetoric I meant I used a device called sarcasm when I said rewrite it. By saying I would rewrite it, I mean not rewrite it (because I think it's a bad idea). Perhaps your constant repetition and demands that I submit a rewrite was some sort of subtle sarcasm, try being a little more obvious because I can't see your eyes roll from here if you don't make it clear. (likely you were just being a nut)
    7. You annoy me by rewriting things in C++, then you annoy me again with nutjob ranting. (and maintaining a 2 to 1 ratio in posting). If that's what winning is, I think I'd rather lose.
    8. I never claimed to like Haskell.
    9. I never was "offended" by your emails. I just thought it was dumb that your desire for a flamewar was so severe it overrode your better judgment. Just because punching my name into google is "easy" doesn't mean it's a recommended course of action.
    10. slashdot ate some of the code in my simcity.c, feel free to fill in the blanks to make it compile.
    (did I miss any questions?)
    11. "get your facts straight" - there were almost no facts in our discussion, especially from me. interferes with the process of me provoking a reaction from you(victim)
    12. reading comprehension - I only skim your rants for keywords that I think are funny and don't use Preview much. which is why these numbers are out of order and my sentence structure is chaotic.

    I basically trolled you. You flared up like you were made from gasoline. Fanned you a bit. And now I am bored of you. If you think so lowly of me and my opinion, why would you react at all to my comments about your adventures in changing the world with C++ ? I normally just roll my eyes at the trolls and move along. If you found this as entertaining as I did, then I suppose it was mutually beneficial.

    Please read the slashdot FAQ. It is good advice.

    What do you think of making SimCity into one of those 256-byte assembly demos? I think the trick would be to prune the rules and functionality down to a subset that is the essence of being a sim.

    ps - I'm registering with your blog so I can poke holes in your design and see if it stands up to my scrutiny. That way you can delete posts you find embarrassing, unlike slashdot. (I wasn't sure if you were aware of slashdot's policy on deleting posts). It's your blog I don't care if you reject me. I wouldn't even encourage that you let me on it.

    to everyone else - I will try to keep my trolling more concise in the future.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:off to Don Hopkins' Web Site by SimHacker · · Score: 1

      Who trolled who?

      You're nowhere near getting on my shit list. But you bozo bit is certainly set.

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  495. well played by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    So you trolled me by porting simcity to C++? .. well played, well played. I may never guess how you knew that would provoke my initial flame.

    You're a last word sort of guy aren't you?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  496. Here's your proof that you're totally wrong by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

    "Feel free to reply with an actual argument"

    Why? You haven't, you've just spouted ignorance and stupidity.

    But since you asked,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD50

    That's the article for LD50. Read it and learn something.

    Then read this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD50_of_THC

    Then realize that your idiot ass was claiming someone could overdose (half the time) on a substance which they would have two ingest more than two pounds of, IN PURE FORM, and you'll realize it's impossible.

    Or you'll make a stupid fucking argument like the rest, where you claim something idiotic like "they wouldn't say anything because of shame..." which makes sense if you have extra chromosomes I guess

    You're an idiot. Attacking me because I tell you you're an idiot without showing you why doesn't make you right, it makes you a bigger idiot because ALL OF THE PROOF YOU NEEDED is easily available and well known.

    You're just too fucking moronic to bother looking for it before you share your lack of wisdom.

    Fuck off now, you've got nothing left to say but "you're right" and I don't need to hear it from a douchebag like you.

    1. Re:Here's your proof that you're totally wrong by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
      Let's count the insults that were used against me by the person who seems to feel that marijuana is inherently safe.

      spouted ignorance and stupidity.
      Thats one, and he hasn't actually said anything yet...

      Read it and learn something.
      Thats two, and he hasn't actually said anything in response to anything that I originally presented, but OK, we'll keep going...

      stupid fucking argument
      Hey, thats three, we're really moving here!

      claim something idiotic like
      Hey, there's a fourth insult, the second in this one line!

      you have extra chromosomes I guess
      Wow, there's number five, and the third on one line. I am clearly dealing with a master-debater here...

      You're an idiot
      Insult six

      I tell you you're an idiot
      Seven, and still moving right along

      you a bigger idiot
      That's number eight. Going for a record here?

      too fucking moronic
      Here's a ninth insult. But we're not done yet, are we?

      your lack of wisdom.
      I'll count that as lucky number ten.

      douchebag
      Wow, that's eleven.

      Eleven insults in only 193 words. Thats approximately one insult per 17.5 words, really pretty impressive I suppose. Though I would be much more impressed if you actually responded with reason rather than just anger.

      You still are clinging to your belief that for some reason marijuana is inherently safe. My original statement was that smoking marijuana can lead to lung cancer, which is still valid. Furthermore I said that it is not inherently safer than alcohol, and I stand by that.

      You are also neglecting to consider the modified marijuana on the market. You can't say for sure what the THC content is of every plant, or what it is for the amount that is being consumed.

      But ultimately, you are acting as if I want to take away your weed. Which of course tells me that you didn't even bother to read my first post in its entirety, so I'll summarize the end of it for you - I am fine with leaving drug enforcement as it is. The reality of marijuana enforcement right now is that if you are not doing something with it in public, your chances of being arrested for it are essentially zero. And I could really care less how much of it someone wants to use, as long as they just stay in their own private residence while doing so.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:Here's your proof that you're totally wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are also neglecting to consider the modified marijuana on the market. You can't say for sure what the THC content is of every plant, or what it is for the amount that is being consumed. Are you suggesting that the increased* levels of THC in today's marijuana could lead to overdose? If so, you clearly don't understand how high the lethal dose is.

      Today's "magic" pot is not really stronger than the best stuff was back in the 60s and 70s. The difference is that good cannabis is more widespread now, while in the 60s most of the marijuana you'd find on the street was low-quality Mexican product.

      *I love how you say "modified" in an attempt to conflate simple agriculture with genetically modified organisms.
  497. I'm not a citizen, but by t_ban · · Score: 1

    If I were president, I'd just find out how Bush keeps bending the laws and the constitution with impunity, learn the ropes from him, and use those techniques to soon repeal the remaining laws of the land and somehow promote myself to President for Life. Only then would I begin for real. Muahahahahahaha.

    --
    First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
  498. Huckabee - is that you? by bytta · · Score: 1

    Isn't this Huckabee's action plan...?

  499. Learn to read you stupid fuck by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1


    "You still are clinging to your belief that for some reason marijuana is inherently safe."

    No, I'm not you fucking retard, I'm telling you ONE THING, that no can overdose on pot. You are clearly too fucking stupid to realize the "inherently safe argument" was made by someone else.

    "Let's count the insults that were used against me by the person who seems to feel that marijuana is inherently safe."

    Well, since I NEVER said it was inherently safe, you're not only wrong but you're doubly wrong and even more stupid. Look at who you're conversing with cunt.

    "But ultimately, you are acting as if I want to take away your weed."

    NO you stupid fuck, I'm acting as if you're a fly and I'm swatting you. You're an ignoramus commenting on a subject that you know little about, and I slapped you down for it. "My weed" as you put it, hasn't been an issue since I graduated, as they say, there's a time for shit like that and it's college.

    You're wrong in like 9 different ways. Just come back and admit it and get this carnage over with, otherwise I'll continue to point out how stupid you are, which isn't hard as it permeates everything you post.

  500. Wow, even insulting in the subject line... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
    So we'll count that as insult one.

    you fucking retard
    Amazing insult number two, before even bothering to say anything at all. A good start, for sure.

    no can overdose on pot
    Oh, my bad. You must be the person who clings to the strange statement that no one in history has died from overdosing on pot? Yeah, I'd like to know how one could ever defend a statement like that. How could you ever be certain of the cause of death for all 10,000+ years of mankind? And as I referred to in a different post, research has shown death following marijuana usage in individuals with no previously known ailments or explanations for their deaths. But that's OK, you can continue to believe that smoking it is as safe as drinking milk.

    even more stupid.
    That makes for insult number three. With still frighteningly little material in the post beyond insults.

    cunt.
    Hey, I think this insult is new. But still number four. I could also point out that insult generally is considered sexist, and doesn't really make much sense directed at a guy. But logic hasn't applied since you hit reply to my original post, so why bother with it now?

    you stupid fuck
    Hey, there's insult number five. We're moving right along.

    ignoramus
    Ooooh, insulting with big words, too. Pretty good for insult number six. I'll take it easy on you and assume that the fly analogy is not directly an insult on its own and just you trying to express creativity.

    stupid you are
    Insult number sever is more your style, really. Back to only six letter words to express your hatred of me...

    In summary, you posted a 210 word post, and insulted me 7 times. I guess that's pretty good, it averages out to 30 words per insult. Of course if the fly and slapped were supposed to be insults as well, then that makes 9 insults in the same number of words, for an average of just over 23 words per insult. So that means either you're getting lazy with your writing, or your hatred has caused you to lose your thesaurus.

    But that notwithstanding, you still seem to have endless anger to throw at me to somehow convince me that marijuana is somehow "safer" than alcohol. If you actually read my initial post in this thread, you would see that all I was arguing is that marijuana is not inherently "safer" than alcohol, at least due to the fact that they encompass different risks that cannot be fairly compared between the two choices.

    But you are free to continue hurling insults at me if that makes you feel better. You can also take comfort in the fact that there is an excellent likelihood that nobody else is reading this thread this far down to see you throw every curse word you know at me.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Wow, even insulting in the subject line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it. He's a jerk, but you're still wrong.

      Smoking marijuana does not increase your risk of lung cancer.

      It is pretty much impossible to overdose on marijuana.

      You claim it is not safer than alcohol. There are roughly 50,000 cases of alcohol poisoning annually in the US, and 0 cases of THC poisoning. I think it's fair to say that cannabis is safer than alcohol.

  501. stunning lack of logic there... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    but it really comes down to you wanting to make everything you don't like illegal. Start with the Jews, why don't you?
    What on earth do you think you're saying there? How public safety and anti-semitism could be even remotely related is beyond me. If you think that its such a horrible idea to ban being stoned in public, then you must think it is a horrible injustice that one can be arrested for being drunk in public.

    Thats all that I'm arguing for. I just want to see the same enforcement for marijuana use as for alcohol use. Which really is the enforcement that we currently have, even if the books say otherwise.

    You spout all sorts of lies about how dangerous it is compared to alcohol
    Ummm... Not sure how you could consider what I said to be a lie. I said it is not safer than alcohol. I did not say it was more dangerous, or anything of that sort. I simply said it is not reasonable to consider it to be safer, when the risks are not the same between the two. It really isn't an apples-to-apples comparison from which one could logically call one "safer".

    But if you want to try to put words in my mouth, well, you might as well just continue doing so. You've been accusing me of all sorts of garbage that I didn't say because you want to read what I write to say something other than that what it actually says. Its your right to read incorrectly, I suppose.

    But really, what the hell are you trying to say with your comment about the Jews? Not once did I propose changing any laws. Not once did I express any hatred for any group of people. Meanwhile, I am getting a constant barrage of hatred from you and the other pro-pot propagandist all day long. And you're trying to suggest what from my writings? You're really stretching it now...
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:stunning lack of logic there... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How public safety and anti-semitism could be even remotely related is beyond me.

      You want to ban something you don't like for no better reason than you don't like it.

      Thats all that I'm arguing for. I just want to see the same enforcement for marijuana use as for alcohol use.

      The laws are already the same. The enforcement is similar. When someone intoxicated makes an ass of themselves, they are arrested. Of course, you seem to think that it's not balanced because alcohol makes up the vast majority of intoxication-related arrests (certainly more than 90% and possibly approaching 99%). Why? Because alcohol makes people act like asses, and most others don't have that effect. Perhaps that in itself is an argument against your position, since alcohol causes more problems than most illegal drugs.

      I said it is not safer than alcohol. I did not say it was more dangerous, or anything of that sort.

      You said it was not safer. That means it is either more dangerous or as dangerous. That is a lie.

      But if you want to try to put words in my mouth, well, you might as well just continue doing so.

      You compared it to alcohol, and so did I. In my comparison, I found all your statements to be lies. For something that is as widely used as marijuana (how many presidental candidates have used or refuse to answer if they have used it?), there are few if any deaths related to it. The same can't be said about alcohol. That makes you a liar.

      But really, what the hell are you trying to say with your comment about the Jews?


      That you are a Nazi. You want governmental control over all that offends you. You'd rather have the government control people's actions than allow for freedom of action. Damn, you are one dim-witted bitter little man. But I guess once your mind is made up, you stop thinking. And yet you have the chutzpah to insult my logic.

  502. "yeah? Well... he's... SHORT! Take THAT!" by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    In other words, these people have been publishing shit under his name for several years, and he didn't bother stopping them, and yet he's responsible enough to lead the country? So you're shifting from "he's a racist" to "he can't run a country because he believes in free speech"? Or "he can't lead a country because he once was too busy being a parent and a doctor to make sure that the people who kept his newsletter going weren't saying anything he didn't agree 100% with"?

    Man, WHERE were his priorities?! He should have been out there, constantly making sure no one was abusing their free speech, instead of being on-call for medical emergencies! You're right! He shouldn't be trusted with anything important! Not a country, not a person's life, not the air-worthiness of air force pilots, not nothing!
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:"yeah? Well... he's... SHORT! Take THAT!" by Veinor · · Score: 1

      How much effort does it take to read a monthly newsletter that goes out with your name on it? Even if he didn't suspect that the people who were writing it were racist, I think it'd be reasonable to still be seeing what they think about things? It's not like the newsletter contained subtle distortions of facts that'd require lots of research to uncover.

  503. I love talking to walls... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    You want to ban something you don't like for no better reason than you don't like it.
    Why don't you go ahead and show us where I suggested banning anything. We can wait. Indeed, we'll be waiting a very, very long time. Because I never suggested banning anything at all. But you enjoy trying to stretch my words into things I never said. So go ahead, and after the end of time, you can admit that indeed I didn't propose banning anything.

    Since of course you are far too dead certain that your feelings are more important than the truth to such a degree that reality is not important.

    You said it was not safer. That means it is either more dangerous or as dangerous. That is a lie.
    Maybe you should actually read what I originally said, rather than continuing to subside on purely your own distortion of it. Here's a link to that comment. Good luck ever finding where I said that it was as dangerous or more dangerous. Indeed, what I said was that trying to say that marijuana is safer than alcohol is like saying sky diving is safer than bungee jumping. They each involve different risks.

    But again, you are free to distort the reality of my responses into whatever fantasy you want them to mean.

    You compared it to alcohol, and so did I. In my comparison, I found all your statements to be lies.
    Interesting conclusion coming from someone who can't be bothered to actually read what I write. But OK, moving on...

    That you are a Nazi.
    I guess I should just be flattered that it took you that long into your reply to insult me for the first time this time around.

    You want governmental control over all that offends you.
    Again, if you actually read any of my comments, you would find that this statement of yours is nothing short of an outright lie. But I won't try to slow you down with reality, since it clearly has no place here when talking at you.

    you are one dim-witted bitter little man
    Fascinating assumptions there make up your second insult against me in this post. And being as I am 6'3" in height, I will take the 'little' to be the third insult. Of course I would expect nothing less than at least three insults per post out of you, since you can't actually present defensible, factual data in your arguments.

    yet you have the chutzpah to insult my logic
    Nice use of Yiddish there. Is that somehow supposed to buttress your absurd assertion of me being a Nazi? Is this supposed to insult me as well somehow? Though frankly, I would say that you're assertion that you are using logic at all is itself an insult to the term.

    But it was nice talking at you anyways, even though it was a complete waste of my time. Now we just wait for this thread to eventually grow old enough to be shut down. I guess you should just count yourself lucky that nobody else is reading this to see you throw continuous expletive-laden hissy-fits based on your own faulty assumptions and failure to read the posts that you think you are replying to.

    Have a nice day.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:I love talking to walls... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why don't you go ahead and show us where I suggested banning anything.

      When you suggested that people high on marijuana be banned from being in public. You can't even get one sentence into a post without lying and contradicting earlier statements.

      Good luck ever finding where I said that it was as dangerous or more dangerous.

      "No less dangerous" means as dangerous. No amount of your lying can change that fact.

      Again, if you actually read any of my comments, you would find that this statement of yours is nothing short of an outright lie.

      You are calling for more governmental regulations. That you said you aren't calling for more regulations can't take back your call to ban pot-heads in public because they offend you.

  504. Only two things by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    1. Appoint Ron Paul as Vice President
    2. Resign

    1. Re:Only two things by shentino · · Score: 1

      Uh, the president can't appoint a VP.

      Double check your constitution.

  505. Sad this got modded as funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sad this got modded as funny

  506. I can't accept that study... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
    I appreciate you taking a civil tone, a refreshing change from the people who have been incessantly cussing at me in this thread. However, I can't accept the results of that study, and I'll tell you why:
    • It has not been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal. The end of the article says it was presented at a conference. From my own experience in research, I can tell you that preliminary or even sketchy data is acceptable for conference presentation. Conference presentations are rarely if ever peer-reviewed. This article is coming on 2 years old, yet there does not seem to be a published article from the findings. This raises concern about the study.
    • We don't know the size of the study. They described the groups, but not how many people were in those groups. This makes it impossible to know if they even had a statistically relevant sample of people in the study.
    • We don't know anything about the marijuana involved in the study. When I earlier referred to "modified" marijuana, I was talking about more than just plant selection or breeding. There are of course some parts of the plant that contain more THC than other parts. And of course some people like to add other things to their marijuana. For this study, which parts were smoked by the people in the survey? How much were they smoking each time? For all we know the heavy smoker was smoking seeds and stems, because it isn't defined how or if the marijuana was compared between the participants.
    • We don't know anything about the people in the study. This is particularly important if the study size was small. It is known that some people and segments of the population seem to be resistant to cancer, in particular. Tobacco companies love to find the people who smoked 2 packs a day for 60 years and died of a heart attack, because hey, at least they didn't die from lung cancer.

    And I suspect that if the people who put together this study didn't address these issues, the study may well have been rejected by a peer-reviewed journal. But I do appreciate you taking the time to at least google the subject for some meaningful data rather than just spouting propaganda. Unfortunately, the pathways of tumorigenesis simply don't support the conclusion of this study. And being as it didn't show up in a journal suggests to me that more work needs to be done.

    I think it's fair to say that cannabis is safer than alcohol.
    I still don't agree with that statement, because as I said, the risks are different. Some of the risks of marijuana are still not clearly understood. I think it is very much premature to call marijuana "safer" just because of the perceived differential of poisoning risk. I suspect that if you looked at ethanol poisoning during US prohibition, you could come to the same conclusion about the "safety" of alcohol.

    One final, disconnected note - not many people here reply to anonymous cowards. Why not sign up for a free account? People will pay more attention to what you say, and you'll be able to more easily track conversations you take part in.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  507. First things first. by Geminii · · Score: 1
    Bring America into line with the civilised countries, aka the Coalition of Pinko Hippy Commie Tree-Huggers.

    Fix the political system - make America an actual democracy and tilt the playing field in favor of third parties. Review the entire national budget and remove all the bits which boil down to chest-beating, pissing other countries off and underwriting bad industry. Used the money saved to pay America's bills, fix the education system, and provide better health care than Canada. Take corporate focus off pure moneymaking. Promote greater social interaction between neighbors.

    Make America great again. Support innovation. Get America back into the top ten countries in the world for freedom of the populace and rational thought. Declare all religion to be a form of adult-only entertainment subject to the same taxes and restrictions on exposing minors to it. Drop the national borders completely and work something out with Mexico so people will want to live there just as much as in the US. Get some solid data on whether decriminalizing drugs altogether would cut down on violence and organized crime, and then follow the recommendations. Tell the states that unless they cut their gun death numbers by 90%, Measures Will Be Taken and they will only apply to those states.

    Investigate every office-holding politician of the last ten years - it'll give the FBI something to chew on and they can hire the staff the CIA and military won't be able to afford any more. Disallow legal person rights to corporations. Fix the social security system so people aren't starving to death in disease-ridden slums any more.

    Beef up public transport. Replace tariffs on high-fuel-efficiency imported cars with a subsidy. Tell local car manufacturers that if they can build something that meets the new standards, they get a subsidy too. As the efficiency of the average car on the road goes up, decrease the subsidies. Have them drop off entirely after ten years anyway. Ideally, make the calculation based on total running/repair costs of a vehicle so you don't end up with cars that run on a teaspoon of fuel but crap their parts out every ten miles.

    Give people four years to stew about the changes. If, in the unlikely event that you're not assassinated, impeached on trumped-up charges or drummed out of office by multibilliondollar industries hurting badly, and in the REALLY unlikely event that you're re-elected under the new voting system, start fixing all the other things that need doing but no-one wants to touch politically. Like converting the US to metric.

  508. Easy by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    1. Legalise marijuana
    2. Tax it
    3. Profit!

  509. Jumping to conclusions is fun! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    When you suggested that people high on marijuana be banned from being in public.
    But they already are. And you can't be drunk in public, either. So I really didn't propose anything, did I? No I didn't. Therefore your statement is null.

    "No less dangerous" means as dangerous.
    You're stretching the statement to meet your own beliefs. Too bad they don't reflect the reality of what I said. But I won't let that get in your way, as it certainly hasn't up until now.

    I'll just mention, yet again, that if you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I said that the dangers can't really be compared on a "less dangerous" - "more dangerous" spectrum, because the risks are not the same. But if you want to continue down the same pathway of ill logic that you've been on for days now, who am I to stop you?

    You are calling for more governmental regulations.
    I challenge you to show where I called for anything new, anywhere in this thread. I never did. I simply stated that I support the current laws in the way that they are currently enforced.

    your call to ban pot-heads in public
    Please, show where I called for anything different than the current laws. We'll keep waiting for you to show that, and we'll all be dead and buried before you do, because I never did. But again, I won't let reality get in your way, since it clearly has no place in your world.

    because they offend you.
    I had to split this unique comment of yours in half because it was incorrect twice in one sentence. Not once did I say that people who chose to get high offend me. If I was offended by this, wouldn't I call for an outright ban? But I never did, as much as you seem to want to accuse me of doing so. Its OK, though. You've been spouting propaganda, rhetoric, and outright lies for some time now. Far be it from me to try to stop you from that.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Jumping to conclusions is fun! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'll just mention, yet again, that if you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I said that the dangers can't really be compared on a "less dangerous" - "more dangerous" spectrum, because the risks are not the same.

      Did you or did you not write that marijuana is "no less dangerous"? You are liar unless you are going to tell me that "no less dangerous" means "less dangerous". Well, and you are a liar if you do. So you have proven yourself, repeatedly to be a liar. "No less dangerous" means it must be as dangerous or more dangerous. Yet you seem to be saying that the dangers are different and thus not comperable. Yet you compared them. So you contradict yourself with every post. Lie. Then claim I'm somehow misinterpreting "no less dangerous" when I think you meant "no less dangerous."

  510. voting for Bill Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A question for Hillary,

      A lot of people of my parents generation, I'm late-20s, are voting for you because of Bill.
    The first women president will be a momentous event. How will I explain to my children that the first female president was elected as a constitutional loop hole to get her husband in office?

      Just curious.

  511. Wrong yet again, I must say... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    you seem to be saying that the dangers are different and thus not comperable
    I'll start by showing the one time that you actually quoted me correctly (even though you misspelled comparable in the process).

    However, the more telling moment is this little nugget from you:

    Yet you compared them.
    Which is a total fabrication. I never did compare them. In my original post, which I'm guessing you still haven't bothered to read, I said that they really can't be compared because the risks are not the same.

    Kindly show where I compared the two. We can wait all eternity I guess, since it will take you that long to find a place where I did. Which was really the point that I was making all along - you can't say that one is safer than the other, since the risks are not the same. After that, you started pushing pro-pot propaganda. It's too bad that you are too entrenched in that ideology to realize that I never said the things you accuse me of saying, nor did I ever propose the types of laws that you want to accuse me of proposing.

    There's one other gem in your reply that likely deserves some attention as well:

    "no less dangerous" when I think you meant "no less dangerous."
    What the hell were you trying to say with this? Aren't those two statements identical? But yet you somehow found a way to make them mean completely different things, by trying to read my words to say something other than what they actually say. But I guess that mirrors pretty much everything you've tried to say thus far.

    I find your sales strategy interesting, really - we certainly can't call it a "debate strategy" since you've pretty well ignored any rules of orderly discourse that would be followed in a debate. You start by trying to drive a point in my sheer repetition - ie, the way that you kept trying to declare the safety of marijuana. Then, when the fallacies of your statement are made crystal clear, you just drop them altogether - we've see you do this both with your statement about marijuana as well as with your accusations of me being for some reason an anti-semite.

    But that's OK too, I guess. Eventually you'll just stop pushing your hatred because of course nobody is really reading this anyways. You're just doing this because you love to hate me. But that's OK, because really your hatred for me only hurts you in the end. And maybe, just maybe, if we really get lucky, you'll realize that all this time, your hatred has been mis-directed and based on nothing at all. At some point you jumped without looking, when you took my statements and twisted them into fuel for your propaganda. You then used that as a vehicle for your hatred, a reason to launch barrages of curse words at me. But really, what did you accomplish? Just because you keep accusing me of lying doesn't make it true. If you read back through posts in this thread, you'll find they have been consistent. All that's changed is your reading of them.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  512. Abolish the patent monopoly system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And abolish or at least severely reform the copyright monopoly system. Well, actually "president" should in theory have very limited powers, so it's not like even as president I could just decide that. As a "dictator", maybe.

  513. If I were president by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    There are a bunch of issue-specific things I could do, but then someone else could still come along after me with a money-backed agenda and undo all the good work.

    So what I would do is fix the system itself. I would ammend the Constitution itself to enact a permanent, irreversible, absolute separation between money and the political process, such that disproportionate representation based on wealth (and corporate control over our government) would never be an issue in this country again. I would change the system such that anyone ethical and smart, from any background, can run for any office (including President) effectively without having to already be rich or famous and without having to take bribes from big companies and special interest groups.

    Once that was done, I would use the media to regularly expose the unethical behavior and bigotry of other elected officials still in office, until I was confident that the public was truly aware of what rotten people they were and that those people would get voted out in the next election.

    Then I could easily spend the rest of my term undoing all the damage that has been done by rich special interests (religious groups, corporations, industry conglomerates) over the last few decades. I would require health insurance companies to provide the same coverage at the same price to everyone, and prohibit them from rejecting anyone. I would get us out of Iraq and instead send small squads of trained assasins on secret missions to find and take out any known terrorists. I would abolish all forms of race-based or gender-based affirmative action and instead institute programs that helped people based on merit and financial circumstances. I would throw out the income tax system and switch to a flat federal sales tax. I would abolish the DMCA, restore fair-use rights, and outlaw any future technological implementation that infringes upon them. I would shrink copyright and patent terms to more reasonable short periods that serve the public good. I would enact new laws governing businesses, the first of which would be that the highest-paid employee could not make more than 20x as much (including all forms of compensation, such as bonuses and stock options) as the lowest-paid employee in the same business.

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  514. He opposes free trade by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Oh, Ron Paul opposes free trade? Do you have any references for this?

    Falcon
  515. Mexicans by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    What right to Mexicans have to cross into our territory and undermine our values and freedoms

    I'm going to reply as if you meant "what right do Mexicans". Fact is is many, maybe not all, Mexicans are of Native American Indian Tribe descent and their ancestors have been here a lot longer than any conquering Europeans. Some Indian tribes even have the right to cross the US Mexican border whenever they want. Such as the Tohono O'odham Nation and other Indian tribes. Actually the Tohono O'odham Nation straddles the US Mexican order with part in the US and part in Mexico. Though the tribes have the right to cross the border many are still being harassed.

    Falcon
  516. immigrants by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    As the child of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who bothered to obey the laws, learn English, and not expect a handout, I find it wholly offensive that anyone should propose that we do not deal with stopping people from sneaking across the borders and illegally taking up residence here.

    Being part Native American Indian I find it offensive that those, or their descendants, who invaded the Americas and massacred those already here now seek to stop others from also immigrating.

    First things first, however... it has to stop with sealing the borders... stop the influx before dealing with who's here.

    The first question that needs to be asked is why people would risk their lives to "illegally" immigrate. For many, if they can earn a living where they are from they will stay there. And yes, the US is partially to blame. Because of the billions of dollars large agribusinesses like ADM and Cargill get in subsidies, corporate welfare, and NAFTA these businesses can export corn to Mexico and sell it there for cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn.

    And Cargill is the poster child of corporate welfare.

    Falcon
  517. What are you proposing? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    That anyone can freely move to any country, and no one can say differently?

    So long as they don't harm an other, that's what I think.

    And if that's the case, that someone can come to America without any permission from the government, then why is it that they can use services that my tax dollars help fund? Shouldn't I get a say in what people can use the services my tax dollars fund?

    That's the problem with welfare which has nothing to do with immigrants. Get rid of most if not all welfare programs, including the billions of dollars corporations collect. Instead allow people to keep the money they earn and let them spend it as they see fit, so long as they don't harm others. When people have more money they have more to invest and or more to spend thus boosting the economy. Or they can donate it. Civil society is usually more effective than government. Because of the size of government it's not responsive to those who pay whereas because civil societies are funded by people who donate willingly they are more responsive to those who pay.

    Falcon
  518. Ron Paul and borders by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Are you really against Ron Paul or are you against borders in general?

    In general I support Ron Paul but oppose borders.

    Falcon
  519. pardons and Ron Paul by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    The executive can set law enforcement priorities. It can also pardon or commute the sentences of convicts. Ron Paul can tell the nation: "stop paying your income tax and I will pardon you."

    Ron Paul has already said he'd pardon all drug offenders.

    Falcon
  520. daddy may have been near danger by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    While I agree with the general sentiments of Dubya, and didn't like Bush Sr as pres, Bush Sr was shot down in the Pacific during WWII when the plane he was flying was hit by Japanese anti-aircraft fire. If you have any info contradicting this I'd like to see it.

    Falcon
  521. War on Drugs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Oh, that's easy. Legalize marijuana, and reduce the criminalization of other drugs, and also make this retroactive to all current inmates. Suddenly, many/most of the people in jail will be released.

    One of the things Ron Paul said, which should go a good way to showing people Ron Paul isn't racist, is that he would pardon all of the people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. Since as a percentage of the various skin colours more Blacks are serving tyme for drug charges many would set free.

    Falcon
  522. My last ambulance ride took 1 hour and cost 350$. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    My last ambulance ride only took 10 minutes to get to the hospital from where I was and cost $700 more than insurance would pay.

    Heath care tends to be overpriced due to billing issues.

    If you think health care cost is expensive wait until it's free.

  523. comments by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    1) Given the extreme volatility of the Middle East--especially if Iran is edging closer to building "gunbarrel" style U235-based nuclear weapons, in spite of a number of claims to the contrary--that might not be a good idea.

    I'm still waiting to see those WMDs Saddam had.

    4) Removing the income limit on SS/Medicare taxes would be a BAD idea, because that would encourage high-income Americans to move their income offshore--legal or not!

    I would do my best to abolish individuals' income tax. The only income tax payers would be corporations, hey if you want limited liability you pay for it. Individuals would pay user fees (taxes). For instance if you drive you will pay tax on the fuel which the income will then be used to pay for building and maintaining those roads you drive on. With the rest of your money you could then buy health insurance, and with competition in insurance the premiums will come down.

    5) I'd offer major tax incentives to build and develop next-generation solar power arrays based on nanotechnology.

    With lower taxes more money would be available to develop and build new generation PV and wind generator plants. Then with lower costs more entities, whether businesses, coops, or individuals could then buy and install PVs, wind farms, and other energy sources.

    6) I'd fund primarily trolley systems and light rail, systems that are relatively easy to implement.

    Fact is is many who own cars won't give them up in the US, even if a good commuter transit system exists. The only way to get more people to use them is by driving up the cost of personal transportation. I was a bike riding fanatic, I used to ride my bike more than 200 miles a week, but even then I knew most people in the US would hate to give up their cars. Heck, I knew homeless people who wouldn't give up their cars for a roof over their head.

    7) I'd create a commission to look into the issues of various universal health care plans, and make sure we have one that addresses the problem of health care rationing.

    If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.

    8) I'd be real careful about any increased regulation of any financial market

    Let me get this right, you don't like regulating, any more than it is now, the financial market but you'd increase regulations in health care?

    Falcon
    1. Re:comments by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Fact is is many who own cars won't give them up in the US, even if a good commuter transit system exists.

      I have to disagree on that!! Look at Chicago's METRA and Philadelphia's SEPTA systems--ridership is good because the commuter rail lines reach places most desired by commuters. Problem is, getting right-of-way for real heavy commuter rail is expensive even if you use old railroad ROW. Light rail systems cost less on a per-mile basis to build and if you look the example of Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority in California, they've managed to build a quite substantial system that covers a large fraction of Santa Clara Valley.

  524. reducing military spending by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    How would you immediately reduce military spending? It would put lots of people out of jobs. (Not that I think it shouldn't be done--I agree with you. But you can't really do it immediately.)

    By pulling many military units out of other countries that alone would reduce military expenditures. My plan would temporarily increase spending in one area, for every year someone served in the military they'd have 1 year of college education paid for. However this would increase individuals' earning potentials so more would be paid in taxes. Then with a citizens' army like Switzerland the nation could be protected.

    Falcon
  525. Re:Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on by rsborg · · Score: 1
    Funny, the version I own has has more lyrics than the most common lyrics posted.

    http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/jean_wyclef/7152926/lyrics.jhtml

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  526. mass transit by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I have to disagree on that!! Look at Chicago's METRA and Philadelphia's SEPTA systems--ridership is good because the commuter rail lines reach places most desired by commuters.

    But how many of those riders would still ride if they could easily drive? I bet it's easier to travel mass transit in Chicago that it is to drive. Though I haven't used it's mass transit, though I do like the Chicago Transit Authority, I have driven through Chicago and the only city I drove through that was worst was Detroit.

    Falcon
  527. What I'd Do by msheekhah · · Score: 1

    I would include this (http://divinelotus.pbwiki.com/Protect+Your+Rights) in my State of the Union address and promptly be shot. All the TV stations would pull the feed. And the next day, my VP would be inaugerated as President.

    --
    Mark Anthony Collins
  528. size of govenment by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'm sure his demands will cause Congress to immediately begin to do exactly as he says in every way. Or perhaps not. He can "demand" anything. What he gets is what they want to give him.

    That's even true today. The Democrat controlled congress won't send the Republican president bills he wants. Look at the economic stimulus package Bush proposed. Democrats don't accept it as it is now, with "'significant' ideological differences" between what each on wants.

    Noone ever explained Customs and Immigration to you? Ships can't enter the USA without first getting approval from the Customs people, and then the IRS gets to talk to them about tariffs. No Federal Government means no Customs, which means merchant shipping stops just like the airlines.

    I already addressed this even if you want to ignore it. The president can ask congress for a bill that addresses ports, with provisions that shippers pay the costs.

    On the one single important issue, there is no difference - neither Party has any interest in surrendering any Federal power at all. Which means they'll be united against a President who wants to reduce Federal power to the Constitutionally mandated limits.

    Look at the economic stimulus plans each wants. They both agree something needs to be done but they disagree with what course of action to take.

    Note the Reagan, who was an immensely popular President didn't manage to shrink the Federal government one iota, even though that was one of his nominal goals

    "Nominally" may be right but he actually wanted to, and did, increase the size of government. In late 2005 or early 2006 "Reason magazine" had an article detailing just how Reagan increased the size of government, especially the so called "War on Drugs". And he once said "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."

    Note, by the way, that I in no way approve of the Federal power grab over the last three-quarter century. But I know enough to know that we can't turn the clock back on it. And believing that we can is a sign of self-delusion.

    Saying it can't be done is self defeating. If all those who want it to happen don't work towards that end it won't happen, but if they try it may happen. Not right away but it can. As one of my favorite singers, Billie Holiday, sung "The difficult I'll do right now, the impossible will take a little while."

    I'd rather be optimistic than a defeatist. And I know something about that. If I had been a defeatist instead of an optimist I'd be dead now. Over ten years ago I was hit while riding my bike, after classes in college, and while I was in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. I spent more than a year in therapy and saw around a dozen therapists, some of whom said after looking at my medical records that I must of been stubborn to have survived.

    Falcon
    1. Re:size of govenment by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I'm sure his demands will cause Congress to immediately begin to do exactly as he says in every way. Or perhaps not. He can "demand" anything. What he gets is what they want to give him.

      That's even true today. The Democrat controlled congress won't send the Republican president bills he wants. Look at the economic stimulus package Bush proposed. Democrats don't accept it as it is now, with "'significant' ideological differences" between what each on wants.

      And think how much harder it is for a President to get things done when NEITHER Party is willing to work with him.

      Noone ever explained Customs and Immigration to you? Ships can't enter the USA without first getting approval from the Customs people, and then the IRS gets to talk to them about tariffs. No Federal Government means no Customs, which means merchant shipping stops just like the airlines.

      I already addressed this even if you want to ignore it. The president can ask congress for a bill that addresses ports, with provisions that shippers pay the costs.

      And what happens when Congress sends him the Bill he wants, with a "small" addendum funding the rest of the Government? You keep insisting that if he asks for something, there is some moral/religious obligation on the part of Congress to give him what he asks for. Check history, it doesn't work that way.

      On the one single important issue, there is no difference - neither Party has any interest in surrendering any Federal power at all. Which means they'll be united against a President who wants to reduce Federal power to the Constitutionally mandated limits.

      Look at the economic stimulus plans each wants. They both agree something needs to be done but they disagree with what course of action to take.

      That isn't the most important issue, though. That's just tactics.

      Note, by the way, that I in no way approve of the Federal power grab over the last three-quarter century. But I know enough to know that we can't turn the clock back on it. And believing that we can is a sign of self-delusion.

      Saying it can't be done is self defeating. If all those who want it to happen don't work towards that end it won't happen, but if they try it may happen. Not right away but it can. As one of my favorite singers, Billie Holiday, sung "The difficult I'll do right now, the impossible will take a little while."

      Sang. "She sang", not "she sung". Saying that the tactics you describe as desirable (the tactics, not the ends) is not self-defeating. It's realistic. Come up with a plan that works within the existing framework of reality, and I'm all for it. Saying that "Our HERO Ron" will make one speech, and the Federal Government will voluntarily reduce itself back to the 1890 (or 1850, your choice) level, is just silly. And that's the summation of your argument - that Little Ronnie will get whatever he asks for from Congress.

      He won't. Get over it.

      You want to "change the way things are done in Washington"? Here's the blueprint, you can fill in the details as you implement it.

      1) Get People (hereafter, People will refer to "people who agree with you as to how things should be run") elected in every State Government. Get enough of them elected that they pretty much control things at the State level.

      2) Get People elected to the House of Representatives. This one is key. The House controls the purse-strings, because only the House can initiate a Budget Bill. Theoretically, at least. In any case, without the House, the Establishment can't do much.

      3) Get People elected to the Senate. 40 of them. Enough to filibuster. Without that, you're not going far.

      4) Get someone elected President. With friendly House, and a S

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:size of govenment by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      And think how much harder it is for a President to get things done when NEITHER Party is willing to work with him.

      The parties as a whole won't however factions within the parties will be willing. For instance fiscal conservatives will work with him to reduce government spending. Some Democrats will work to end the war in Iraq, as well as a few Republicans. It'll be hard to get enough to support many things but if done right I think it can be done.

      And what happens when Congress sends him the Bill he wants, with a "small" addendum funding the rest of the Government?

      Then he can veto it. With the cameras rolling in the Oval Office he can explain why he is vetoing it as he does.

      You keep insisting that if he asks for something, there is some moral/religious obligation on the part of Congress to give him what he asks for.

      Can you provide me one place where I insist Congress has to give him, or any other president, what they ask for? All I recall is saying he can ask Congress to send him someting Constitutional.

      That isn't the most important issue, though. That's just tactics.

      It's not just tactics. Democrats want unemployment to be extended by any economic stimulus package and are threatening not to pass something without it. And I think they mean it. To me that's more strategic than tactical.

      Sang. "She sang", not "she sung".

      You still understood it therefore I can only conclude it's an avoidance tactic.

      Seeing as how you only offer critiques or avoidance tactics, and won't offer solutions I see no reason to continue.

      Falcon
  529. The only remaining question now... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Is whether or not "AK Marc" will come forward and admit that he let his imagination get the better of him in his interpretation of my writings. Even better of course would be if he came forward and then apologized for the hateful things that he said about me as a result of his twisted interpretations.

    Yet somehow, I doubt either of these will ever happen. Instead this thread will close quietly and we will here nothing new from him. I suspect this may be ultimately a reflection of what he has learned from this experience - which is of course the true loss in this situation.

    Really, the only value to the post of his that I am writing this final reply to is that he only made a single insult or false accusation in it - perhaps I can take that as a possible sign that he is maturing in his strategy. Though likely it would be erroneous of me to expect it a sign that he is willing to accept the fact that his claims were all based on his own biased view of my writings, as opposed to what I actually wrote.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:The only remaining question now... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Is whether or not "AK Marc" will come forward and admit that he let his imagination get the better of him in his interpretation of my writings.

      You lied. You lied about lying. You directly compared the danger level of marijuana with alcohol. "No less dangerous" is a comparison of the danger. You then stated that they aren't comparable. You contradict yourself and lie about it, even with crystal clear examples of your lies and contradictions. You are uninterested in honest discourse and are interested in only proving you are right, despite all the evidence to the contrary (all the evidence being your own contradictory statements, you had to be lying for one of them).

      Though likely it would be erroneous of me to expect it a sign that he is willing to accept the fact that his claims were all based on his own biased view of my writings, as opposed to what I actually wrote.


      You directly compare alcohol and marijuana and then say they aren't comparable. You state that you think druggies should be banned from the streets because you don't want to see them there, then claim you really meant that things should be based on "public safety" (yet there is no evidence anywhere that a stoned person is somehow less safe to those around them, nor have you bothered to actually state that). So you won't even state your opinion any more, because there is nothing you can say that I can't quote you saying the opposite. Oh, and you claim that all marijuana use will cause lung cancer, yet won't answer how you think marijuana brownies cause lung cancer. If you will either state that marijuana use is not necessarily hazardous to your lungs (as it can be consumed other than having been smoked) or explain how eating a marijuana brownie causes lung cancer, then that will be a good start. Instead, you are continuing to imply that an eaten brownie causes lung cancer, which is a lie and you know it.

    2. Re:The only remaining question now... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      You directly compared the danger level of marijuana with alcohol. "No less dangerous" is a comparison of the danger. You then stated that they aren't comparable.
      I guess you answered the question then as to whether or not you would ever read the statements that you are trying to critique, as clearly you have not.

      Had you actually read them, you would have realized that in my first post on this matter, I stated that they are not comparable. At no time did I actually try to compare them.

      But again, I'd hate to allow reality to get in your way of bashing me...

      You directly compare alcohol and marijuana
      No, I never did any such thing. But going on...

      say they aren't comparable
      I'll take this as the closest you've ever come to reading my post. But since you already made a false assertion before stating this, you really voided your own statement. Thanks for playing, though...

      You state that you think druggies should be banned from the streets because you don't want to see them there
      No, I did not. I stated that I support the existing laws that prohibit people under the influence of drugs or alcohol from being in public. But feel free to continue to try to extrapolate that into wild and fantastic things, since that is what you've been doing all along, really...

      Oh, and you claim that all marijuana use will cause lung cancer,
      I never said that either. But why try to bring reality into the picture now? I stated that inhaling particulate matter can cause lung cancer. But clearly you can't be bothered to check on the statements that you try to claim I made.

      Instead, you are continuing to imply that an eaten brownie causes lung cancer
      I never made that claim, either. But considering you thought I was an anti-semite a few days ago, I guess I can't really be surprised that you would place a claim like that on me as well. You haven't really bothered to read anything important that I've written since the beginning, instead looking just for fodder for your propaganda.

      This has been a fascinating discussion, I suppose. And when I posted this remaining question, I really figured you would never respond, since you would be too arrogant to admit that you allowed your own false assumptions about me to severely warp your view of what I wrote.

      Now instead, it seems that indeed you are too ignorant of the writing in front of you to see that your hatred got the better of you. You have been throwing hatred and propaganda at me this entire time, and ignoring any statement that I made if you couldn't find a way to turn it into an insult.

      I have to wonder what color the sky is in your world.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  530. The sky is blue here, but you'll probably disagree by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    No, I did not. I stated that I support the existing laws that prohibit people under the influence of drugs or alcohol from being in public.

    Which is stating that you support laws that ban druggies from the streets because you don't want them there.

    At no time did I actually try to compare them.

    You compared them multiple times. You stated that the risks are different, but that you don't agree that it is safer than alcohol. That is a statement that you think marijuana is the same or worse than alcohol. That disagrees with every study ever done on the subject.

    "Instead, you are continuing to imply that an eaten brownie causes lung cancer"

    I never made that claim, either.

    I never claimed you made that claim. I claimed that you implied it. You stated that marijuana contains the lung cancer danger that alcohol does not (by comparing them, as you said you do not do). I stated that smoking is not required for administering THC, and you would never adjust your obviously incorrect generalization. Instead, you dodged the question. Even upon repeated prodding, you never addressed that point. Interestingly, I found studies that indicate that smoking marijuana does not increase the chance of cancer, and I found none that indicated an increased chance of cancer. Since you refuse to answer any yes/no questions I ask of you I'll ask this one and expect the same answer I get for all the others. Does marijuana use, including the possibility that someone administers it solely through oral ingestion, necessarily increase the chance of lung cancer?

    I expect that you will reply, as your ego will not let you let it go. Yet, I predict that you will not answer the question with a Yes/No answer, if you even answer it at all. Instead, you will find some perceived slight to complain about, explain how your numerous comparisons between alcohol and marijuana aren't comparisons, and further obfuscate the point that marijuana is safer than alcohol and has fewer deaths attributed to its use than regular strength Tylenol. But I am ever hopeful that you can manage to answer the Yes/No question before your rant on the other points.

  531. making your own reality again... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Which is stating that you support laws that ban druggies from the streets because you don't want them there.
    Well, at least you're almost coming close to reality. Of course this still leaves a tremendous act of non sequitur when you tried to use it to call me an anti-semite.

    However, you are still not quite there. I said I support laws that treat the act of being in public while under the influence as a crime. That is not the same as "laws that ban druggies from the street". I support laws that are made in the interest of the public good when they keep people who are under the influence out of the public environment.

    Considering how evil you have painted alcohol in your previous posts, I would think you could appreciate this, as I said that I support laws that continue to have the same consequences for being in public under the influence of drugs as under the influence of alcohol.

    But I'm sure you'll yet find a way that this makes me a horrible person.

    You compared them multiple times. You stated that the risks are different, but that you don't agree that it is safer than alcohol. That is a statement that you think marijuana is the same or worse than alcohol.
    There you are dead wrong, as you have been from your first reply in this thread. I never compared the two. If you would read back to my initial post, which obviously you still have not done, you would see that I said you cannot call one safer than the other because the risks are not the same.

    At no time did I ever say one was actually safer than the other. I have challenged you mutliple times to show where I ever did, and you have yet to meet that challenge.

    Obviously, you never will be able to met that challenge, because no amount of reading of my posts will ever find a point where I said that. But you can continue to claim that I did, as obviously you will.

    I found studies that indicate that smoking marijuana does not increase the chance of cancer, and I found none that indicated an increased chance of cancer
    I'd love to see these studies, if you can find any that actually have been peer reviewed. If you read the AC post that came after one of your curse-laden tirades, you will find a study that was run but never reviewed. I replied to that post by showing why it cannot be taken as completely credible, and if you have any others I'd love to see them.

    Does marijuana use, including the possibility that someone administers it solely through oral ingestion, necessarily increase the chance of lung cancer?
    Is it absolutely 100% safe under all cirumstances? You cannot claim that it is, no matter how much propaganda you want to repeat.

    Frankly, your posts remind me of the same kind of indoctrinated drivel that comes from religious fundamentalists. Your entire strategy seems to revolve around repeating something so many times over that you hope it will eventually be accepted as fact just due to your own repetition.

    I hate to tell you this, but nothing becomes fact purely through repetition. You can have your own point of view, but not your own truth. If that was true, then Saddam would have really been in the process of building nukes to attack the US.

    But you have, by your own insistence to stay on (your own very strange) message, proven that you are unwilling to read my earlier posts. Had you read my first post in this thread, you would realize that your claims about my alleged comparisons between marijuana and alcohol are nothing more than baseless claims fathered by your own fear and hatred.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:making your own reality again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Of course this still leaves a tremendous act of non sequitur when you tried to use it to call me an anti-semite.

      You are obviously unaware of a little thing called the holocaust. See, from that, there came some sayings regarding freedom. One popular one in particular was a poem.

      When the Nazis came for the communists,
      I remained silent;
      I was not a communist.

      When they locked up the social democrats,
      I remained silent;
      I was not a social democrat.

      When they came for the trade unionists,
      I did not speak out;
      I was not a trade unionist.

      When they came for the Jews,
      I remained silent;
      I wasn't a Jew.

      When they came for me,
      there was no one left to speak out.

      I was pointing out that by picking some group of that you want the government to "come for" you are entering the slippery slope that has lead to bad things before. Since you didn't get it the first time, I figured I'd let it go. Obviously, you can't let anything go, ever, so I explained it to you. Perhaps you should read more history. It would help you realize that you are an idiot and most everything you like has been tried before and failed. But then, if you were capable of learning anything, you would have understood such references or would have learned from what I have presented here. Instead, you cling to your incorrect ideas and fabricate a new reality to justify them.

      Is it absolutely 100% safe under all circumstances? You cannot claim that it is, no matter how much propaganda you want to repeat.

      So, are you stating that eating a marijuana brownie increases your chance of lung cancer? Actually, it was a test. I knew you'd ignore the question. You are incapable of answering any question, you know everything and are so much better than everyone else that you don't have to convince them of the truth, but you can just ignore the little people and mock them for not believing your truth. If you were actually interested in a conversation, those usually include answering questions when asked. You failed.

    2. Re:making your own reality again... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      You are obviously unaware of a little thing called the holocaust. See, from that, there came some sayings regarding freedom. One popular one in particular was a poem.
      Hey, condescending and oblivious in a single response. Good job.

      You're response is completely irrelevant because I never advocated for the government to "come for" anyone. It was only your own dsitortion of what I wrote that lead you to that conclusion. By your logic, we should probably abolish drunk driving laws, since the government is out to imprison all drunks, right? You are arguing that the enforcement of such laws leads to the inevitable persecution of minority groups.

      Funny, though. We've had DUI laws on the books since prohibition ended (indeed we had them before as well). Yet it has lead to no cultural holocaust.

      But of course we all know how the Hitler comparison works in an argument - the first person to invoke it against the other obviously has a much better point and wins by default, right?

      Oh wait, thats completely the opposite of reality. But it seems to be the foundation for a lot of what you've been trying to say ad naseum.

      you stating that eating a marijuana brownie increases your chance of lung cancer?
      I don't see why this question is even relevant. The question should be whether or not eating a marijuana brownie is completely safe as you want to say. To which the answer is of course no.

      you know everything and are so much better than everyone else that you don't have to convince them of the truth, but you can just ignore the little people and mock them for not believing your truth
      Hmmm... Which one of us damn near exhausted the supply of English language expletives in a single post?

      If you would even pay attention to what I've been saying, rather than throwing insults and propaganda, you might realize your claims are still as baseless as they were the first time you started insulting me.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:making your own reality again... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I never advocated for the government to "come for" anyone.

      You advocated that they come for people walking the streets in a manner you don't like, even if they are bothering no one. But thanks for proving my point that you are a liar. You haven't managed a single post after your first that didn't directly contradict one before.

  532. repetition leading to indisputable truth? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Since once again you are basing your argument on repetition rather than any verifiable information, I thought perhaps it would make just as much sense to make my own fun conclusion.

    I own a shotgun. I use my shotgun safely. Therefore, shotguns must be absolutely safe, and everyone should own one or more shotguns.

    This argument follows just as well as your argument for the inarguable safety of marijuana, or your interesting attempt to classify me as an anti-semite.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:repetition leading to indisputable truth? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I own a shotgun. I use my shotgun safely. Therefore, shotguns must be absolutely safe, and everyone should own one or more shotguns.

      I can present any number of millions of cases that prove that statement false. For one particularly public contradiction, go hunting with the vice president. You haven't been able to contradict any of my statements ever. The closest you came was a study where they concluded they didn't know what happened, but since marijuana was found, they would be more than happy to blame it, though they aren't sure how it would cause it, how it would work, or whethere there were any other factors that weren't detectable with the common tests. That's as credible as if I had said that I know someone that slipped and fell once, and they had a shotgin in their hands, so shotguns cause falls because nothing slippery was found on the floor.

      This argument follows just as well as your argument for the inarguable safety of marijuana, or your interesting attempt to classify me as an anti-semite.

      I never claimed such thing. I didn't bother to check the timestamps and which things were responses to which, but I think you posted this after I explained it was an analogy about people sitting by or even encouraging the government to take away those they don't like. You are such an advocate. Who they take away wasn't material, other than the poem I posted is most known for that one line, so I used that. But you know that now, and any attempt to claim I said you were anti-semitic is a lie. But that's never stopped you before.

    2. Re:repetition leading to indisputable truth? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      You haven't been able to contradict any of my statements ever.
      That's not true. Of course, you haven't made many statements aside from your own beliefs, but I've shown why they don't hold water as well.

      One key example is your repeated statement that "nobody in the history of the world" has died from marijuana. That statement is a statement of belief at the most, as nobody could ever be qualified to back up that kind of statement.

      The closest you came was a study where they concluded they didn't know what happened, but since marijuana was found, they would be more than happy to blame it,
      You obviously didn't read the study closely or pay attention to who did it. The study was ran in a country where marijuana is legal. Furthermore, the cases that were reviewed in it all followed similar patterns in very different individuals, where the only thing in common was the marijuana use immediately preceding death. But you can feel free to call it bias if you want, you'll just happen to be terribly short sighted in doing so. Beyond that, if the study was indeed so terribly biased, it never should have passed peer review in a country that allows the use of marijuana.

      But again, I should never expect that reality could ever stand in the way of your own beliefs.

      I never claimed such thing
      You did too accuse me of next going to send the government for the Jews. But feel free to try to dodge your way out of your statements if you want. If that was just supposed to be an analogy, it was a horrible one at that.

      encouraging the government to take away those they don't like. You are such an advocate.
      That is still an absurd stretch. I never said anything to the sort of disliking the people, as you try to assign to me. I support the laws that are passed in the interest of public safety, to keep people who are abusing substances that reduce their own mental faculties from being out in public.

      But feel free to continue fantasizing about horrible nasty people such as myself chairing concentration camps that house and exterminate marijuana users that were kidnapped from their own homes. At least that certainly seems to be what you want to associate with me.

      attempt to claim I said you were anti-semitic is a lie
      You tried to extend me to wanting to persecute the Jews. It was in your own post.

      Just to remind you: Here is where you called me a Nazi in one of your posts, and Here is where you said I would go after the Jews. I will look forward to seeing how you try to claim that you didn't actually say that, when its right there in writing.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:repetition leading to indisputable truth? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      One key example is your repeated statement that "nobody in the history of the world" has died from marijuana. That statement is a statement of belief at the most, as nobody could ever be qualified to back up that kind of statement.

      That is correct. It is impossible to prove that no one has ever died from a 700 foot flaming pink unicorn. However, if that is to have happened, one would think that it would somehow be newsworthy. As the federal government attributes somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths per year to alcohol, perhaps we could check their records as to those that, in the absence of all other drugs, died from use of marijuana, including all lung cancer deaths, overdoses, asphyxia from smoking it. Oh, I looked, and according to the US federal government, there isn't a single documented case. You posted one where they could find no cause (but said it could have been marijuana because they have no clue what happened), but I have never seen anything that indicated a direct death from marijuana, nor a direct death froma 700 ft tall flaming unicorn. So, until I see evidence that either of those has occured, I will do what any sane person would do. I would treat claims of the danger of both situations in the same manner. Why wouldn't you?

      You did too accuse me of next going to send the government for the Jews.

      I asked who was next on your laundry list of people to go after because you didn't like them. The list obviously exists, as you stated it did. I wanted to know the whole list, and I wanted to compare you with a Nazi, taking away rights for no other reason that you don't like them. Since the best reason you could give for banning a marajuana user from the street is because you don't want to see it, I can imagine that you could extend that list to all sorts of things. Seeing as how your comments about people making alternate choices were second class citizens you shouldn't have to see or deal with, i was wondering if you'd extend that to gypsies, gays, Social Democrats, Jews, or any of the others that the Nazis went after.

      You are smart enough to realize that I didn't say "you hate Jews" but instead asked a rhetorical question to draw an analogy, any further statements that I called you anti-semitic are lies. But that hasn't stopped you before.

      Here is where you said I would go after the Jews

      Ah, but asking if they are on your list is not saying that you hate them. It is making an analogy to the Nazis that went after one group after another, with no one realizing how far they would go. You've indicated you'd like to see all people high in public sent to jail, so who else do you find offensive? Jews? Gays? They were on the Nazi's lists of people persecuted because the didn't like them, and that's apparently all it takes to be on your persecuted list.

    4. Re:repetition leading to indisputable truth? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      As the federal government attributes somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths per year to alcohol, perhaps we could check their records as to those that, in the absence of all other drugs, died from use of marijuana, including all lung cancer deaths, overdoses, asphyxia from smoking it

      It is quite interesting that you don't trust the government to handle public safety in the issue of people being under the influence of drugs in public, yet you believe their numbers. And for that matter what numbers did you check? You said

      there isn't a single documented case

      But didn't say where those numbers came from. And beyond that is the problem that it is very difficult to study marijuana deaths in vacuo. Many marijuana users smoke tobacco as well, or are involved in other activities where they willingly subject themselves to danger. But if someone smokes both tobacco and marijuana, and dies of lung cancer, its much more likely that the tobacco smoke will be reported.

      Whereas the study I pointed to actually showed several well-studied, unexpected deaths in individuals whose only common trait was marijuana use. Had they all died in vastly different locations or at vastly different times, then the marijuana use likely would not have even been paid any attention to.

      You just simply don't have a large enough sample to state that marijuana use is as safe as you want to claim. The claims you have made cannot be supported by acceptable study methods, and have yet to be in any studies that have passed peer review.

      I would treat claims of the danger of both situations in the same manner

      If you're talking about the claims of danger for alcohol and marijuana, then yes. If you're talking about marijuana and unicorns, then your logic doesn't hold water. Anyone who approaches a product whose safety has not been clearly ascertained without concern is short-sighted at best. It wasn't that long ago that we thought trans fats were a good idea, and not much longer prior to that athletes on the Tour De France were smoking cigarettes while riding to help their lungs.

      I asked who was next on your laundry list of people to go after because you didn't like them

      You are welcomed to show where I ever said anything about not liking people who choose to use drugs. I never said anything of the sort. As I already stated, my concern is for public safety.

      But because your argument is based on your own hatred (against me), you of course took my comment to be equal to hatred.

      And beyond that is the fact that you keep saying I want to "go after" people. I never said anything of the sort. There is a rather huge difference between picking up people in public who are being a safety threat to the public, and "going after" them.

      Seeing as how your comments about people making alternate choices were second class citizens you shouldn't have to see or deal with

      That is counter to what I said, and you should be smart enough to realize that, if you were to actually read what I wrote. I said earlier that I could really care less how much people chose to use drugs, as long as they stay out of the public realm. If they want to use drugs, and can be responsible enough in doing so to not subject the public to their choices, then they can feel free to do so. I said this before, and I repeat it for you now. I never in this thread, or anywhere else, suggested "going after" anyone. Nor did I ever say that they were "second class citizens" as a result of their choices. My concern is public safety, just as I said before. Or would you rather have people driving while under the influence?

      any further statements that I called you anti-semitic are lies

      I hoped at first that you were not serious when you asked if I was going to go after the Jews, but who would

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:repetition leading to indisputable truth? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It is quite interesting that you don't trust the government to handle public safety in the issue of people being under the influence of drugs in public, yet you believe their numbers.

      Yes. If General Mills were to announce that increased sugar intake, like in their cereals, prevents cancer, one would take that with a grain of salt. If the same statement were to come out jointly from the AMA, FDA, and ADA, the announcement would be looked at differently. The government has done things like pay for a study to prove marijuana makes someone an unsafe driver, then suppress the results when the study found that people that are high crashed less than even the sober people (they overestimate their impairment, as opposed to alcohol use which results in underestimations of impairment). But I have read that study, and I find it credible because it shows the opposite of what they would have preferred the outcome to be. People that understand critical thinking realize that the value of the statements depends not only on the person saying them, but the context. Take again, for an example, the statements by candidates while running for office, and their statements after they are in office. Which would you believe more?

      Again, feel free to show where I expressed hatred for any group of individuals.

      You desire to see all druggies rounded up off the streets and thrown in jail indicates hate to me. Since you have been unable to give any explanation other than that you don't like it, it obviously isn't a result of your undying love for them and protecting them from themselves.

      I hoped at first that you were not serious when you asked if I was going to go after the Jews, but who would be arrogant enough to make such a comment in jest?

      It wasn't in jest, nor was it an accusation against you. It was a reference to history that you were too dense to get and immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion about.

      Perhaps you feel that the Jews are not as good as you are, since you clearly see yourself as the ultimate arbiter of knowledge?

      Perhaps you are tired of my pointing out your intellectual shortcomings and revealing your logical fallacies, so you are trying to turn on me something that was never said about you. I also mentioned the gypsies and the Social Democrats. Perhaps you should also ask about my feelings against those two groups.

    6. Re:repetition leading to indisputable truth? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      The government has done things like pay for a study to prove marijuana makes someone an unsafe driver, then suppress the results when the study found that people that are high crashed less than even the sober people
      So where did you find this study? Even if it was "suppressed" as you claim, you must have gotten the data somewhere. So where did it come from? This is likely the closest to a fact that you have come in a week, but yet you can't be bothered to say where it came from. Why should we believe you didn't just make this up?

      Show us why this should be credible.

      People that understand critical thinking realize that the value of the statements depends not only on the person saying them, but the context.
      I'm puzzled to see this statement from you, considering the way you tend to respond to anything I bring up by hurling insults at me. We'll have to wait and see if you actually can show a meaningful source for the "study" you are referring to here, or if you just expect that like your other statements, it should simply be accepted after you've repeated it thrice.

      You desire to see all druggies rounded up off the streets and thrown in jail indicates hate to me.
      That is your own distortion of my statement, fueled by your hatred towards me. I never stated any such desire. You know that you cannot possibly back this statement, and yet you keep repeating it hoping that at some point I will leave it alone so that you can start pretending it to be true.

      That simply will not happen, though. This statement of yours in an outright lie. I never said anything of that magnitude, and if you were to actually go back and read what I wrote, you would know that to be true. Instead you take what you want to see, and pretend it to be factually accurate.

      It was a reference to history that you were too dense to get and immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion about.
      With the extremist hatred that you were throwing at me prior to that statement, it would have been par for the course if you were to accuse me of being an anti-Semite. And considering the fact that you have repeatedly called me a Nazi, it would seem that indeed for some reason you consider me an anti-Semite.

      And I see that again, you are returning to your roots of simply insulting me.

      so you are trying to turn on me something that was never said about you
      My accusation of your extremist hatred towards others is much better supported by your writings than your accusation against me of hatred against any group.

      Perhaps you should also ask about my feelings against those two groups.
      Nope, I'm not particularly concerned. We've seen enough of your ego and hatred exhibited towards me, we'll leave the rest of the world alone. They can thank me for it later.

      But really, I've been asking you for some time now to show where you believe I lied. You have yet to answer this request with anything other than just additional statements of you hating me and your claiming me to be a liar.

      I would really like to see where you feel I was lying.

      Really

      Show me why you feel I am such a horrible waste of a human life, such a monstrous, despicable, bigoted, hateful liar.

      I'd really like to know.

      Have a nice day.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  533. There's reality, and then there's AK Marc... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    You advocated that they come for people walking the streets in a manner you don't like, even if they are bothering no one.
    So then you must be in favor of repealing the DUI laws and allowing people to wander the streets drunk?

    And I never said anything about having police "come for" anyone. People who end up arrested for being under the influence in public end up arrested because of the nuisance that they cause. It is in the end a public safety concern - the laws are there for the same reason that you can't walk the streets with a machine gun in plain sight.

    But thanks for proving my point that you are a liar. You haven't managed a single post after your first that didn't directly contradict one before.
    I'm still waiting for you to prove any of this. Again, your entire argument rests on your own faith that if you repeat something enough it will become inarguable truth. I have, and will again, ask you to please show where I contradicted myself. You still have yet to show it, because I didn't.

    But of course, far be it from me to allow reality to get in the way of you and whatever you think you're saying.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:There's reality, and then there's AK Marc... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And I never said anything about having police "come for" anyone.

      You complain about me calling you names. I'll make you a deal. You quit lying, and I'll quit calling you a liar. Fair?

    2. Re:There's reality, and then there's AK Marc... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      You quit lying, and I'll quit calling you a liar.
      You could start by showing where I was lying. I have ignored your accusations of my "lying" thus far because they seem to simply be your defense mechanism when you realize that you are facing actual, meaningful information that disagrees with your beliefs.

      From my vantage point, I would say that you really should have stopped calling me a liar a long time ago, because I don't see any points where I was lying. But feel free to point one out where you can actually defend your accusation with something better than a statement of faith.

      Thus far you haven't bothered to meet any similar challenge, so I don't expect that you will this time, either.

      Have a nice day.
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:There's reality, and then there's AK Marc... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You could start by showing where I was lying.

      I have multiple times, then you lied about it, snipped those portions out of your replies, and lied again about what I said. You are a liar, and nothing you have said is the truth, exept that you hate whole classes of people (which we only know some of the list you hate) and would like to see them sent to jail. You have, on multiple occassions, compared the risks of alcohol and marijuana, then claimed you didn't compare them. That's sufficient to prove you a liar. Since I have pointed out the directly contradictory statements before and you ignored them, I will not bother to include them again. You'll just ignore them and lie about what you said yet again. Since, as we all know by now, you are a liar.

  534. don't just say it... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I have multiple times, then you lied about it
    Please, stop telling us that you've demonstrated this (when you haven't), and just show us.

    This all parallels your basic strategy in this entire discussion though - you just keep repeating something in the hopes that it will become true simply by virtue of your own repetition. You have yet to prove any of your allegations against me. Please, I ask you again, show me where I was lying. Don't just keep repeating your allegations in the hopes that they will magically become true just because you're repeating them.

    If I am such a horrible liar and worthless individual, then show us why. Don't just keep telling us that it is so without actually backing up your claim.

    You have, on multiple occassions, compared the risks of alcohol and marijuana, then claimed you didn't compare them
    I am still waiting for you to point to a single occasion where I did such a thing. I have asked you many times to show us where I said that, and you have yet to make good on it.

    Again, you seem to expect that your statement will become credible simply because you've repeated it many times over.

    Since I have pointed out the directly contradictory statements before
    Nonsense. You have done no such thing. I have yet to find a single response of yours where you did such a thing. Feel free to show us where it happened. I have asked you many times to do this, and you conveniently ignore the request every time, instead furthering your own desire to make me look like a Nazi for some odd reason.

    Since, as we all know by now, you are a liar.
    I guess in this case, we would be you and only you. The likelihood of anybody else reading this at this point is around zero. And the odds of anyone else agreeing with your absurd ramblings ought to be the same. You've been constantly repeating your allegations and propaganda throughout this thread, just hoping that it will become the truth.

    And I have asked you many times to provide something to back up what you claim to be true, and every time you ignore the request.

    Have a nice day.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:don't just say it... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And I have asked you many times to provide something to back up what you claim to be true, and every time you ignore the request.

      I have. Read the history. You don't answer the points I present, and instead explain how comparing the specific risks of alcohol and the specific risks of marijuana in the same post is not a comparison of the two. Since you will lie about what it means, it is pointless for me to quote your contradictory statements yet again.

      I have asked you many times to do this, and you conveniently ignore the request every time, instead furthering your own desire to make me look like a Nazi for some odd reason.

      If you don't want to look like a Nazi, stop advocating the arrest of people for the sole reason that you don't approve of them. I call 'em as I see 'em. You are a lying Nazi. The more you post, the more you lie. That's another point I've made regarding your lies. You called for the arrest of high people for the reason that you don't want to see them. Then you claimed that because the current laws will result in their arrest that you aren't calling for, supporting, or claiming anything. It doesn't work that way. Stating an agreement with a law that results in the arrest of someone is the same thing as supporting the arrest of them. For your statements to be true, there would have to be some difference wanting them arrested and advocating for their arrest, and there just isn't a difference between those points. Not that you actually argue the points brought up, but instead dismiss everything I say because you can't hold a civil argument about it (and yes, I'm calling you uncivil, despite the fact that you think I'm the one that started it; I'd explain why, but you'd never get it, you've shut down your mind long ago, and your knee is writing all your responses).

    2. Re:don't just say it... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      You don't answer the points I present

      Please re-present the points that you feel you have presented, but do so without being insulting or repeating propaganda. I will willingly respond to points presented in such a manner.

      explain how comparing the specific risks of alcohol and the specific risks of marijuana in the same post is not a comparison of the two

      This is another of your statements that you seem to expect to be accepted as truth simply because you have repeated it. I have asked you to show where I compared the two and said that one is any better than the other. You of course have been unable to find such a spot because I never made such a comparison. But yet your hatred of me exempts you (in your own mind) from needing to support your claim, and you just keep repeating yourself as if someone other than you believe it to be true.

      Since you will lie about what it means, it is pointless for me to quote your contradictory statements yet again.

      This is at least the third time today that I have asked you to show where I said something untrue. You have yet to respond to any of my requests for you to demonstrate this. You are supporting my own statement that you seem to want people to believe what you say, simply because you have said it multiple times.

      The same type of "logic" is what has cost the lives of almost 4,000 US soldiers in Iraq.

      If you don't want to look like a Nazi, stop advocating the arrest of people for the sole reason that you don't approve of them

      This has nothing to do with my approval of people. It has to do with my concern for the safety of the public as a result of choices that people make.

      If you are so loving of people, then for one you shouldn't be exhibiting such vile hatred towards me. And two, you should also be pushing for the repeal of DUI laws so that people can freely do anything they want while intoxicated.

      I call 'em as I see 'em. You are a lying Nazi. The more you post, the more you lie. That's another point I've made regarding your lies.

      Again with the hatred, again with the baseless accusations.

      Please, show us my "lies". Show us what makes me a "Nazi".

      You called for the arrest of high people for the reason that you don't want to see them.

      That is an unfounded lie coming from you. I never said anything about wanting or not wanting to see anyone. I have stated several times that I don't care if people want to use drugs, I just don't want them putting the public at risk.

      But of course, you won't let that reality get in your way. You are enjoying your hatred far too much at this point.

      Stating an agreement with a law that results in the arrest of someone is the same thing as supporting the arrest of them.

      Except that you are refusing to separate people from actions. You are too determined to use your hatred to make me into some kind of monster. I support laws that result in arrests based on actions. You seem to refuse to separate these two for reasons that are unclear.

      For your statements to be true, there would have to be some difference wanting them arrested and advocating for their arrest, and there just isn't a difference between those points.

      No, there is a huge difference between the two. At least in the way you describe it, since you are so adamant to try to "prove" that I "want people arrested". I advocate the arrest of people that are acting irresponsibly with regards to public safety. This is what I stated at the beginning, and it is what I continue to state now. Instead because you harbor such deep and profound hatred towards me, you draw your own conclusion based on your own fears and hate.

      but instead dismiss everything I say because you can't hold a c

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  535. Check the firehose... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1
    Not sure if this one will make the front page, but it has interesting parallels to this discussion:

    Are we in the age of endarkenment?

    And if you read the article cited in that post, you will find a quote from the author about "endarkenment":

    a society where what I say three times is true and never mind the facts.
    Perhaps the author was reading the allegations that you have been throwing at me? More likely a coincidence, since no other sensible person would still be looking at your tirades at this point. But still rather interesting to see that someone recognizes your tactic as being a parallel to the decline of science.
    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Check the firehose... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the author was reading the allegations that you have been throwing at me?

      If that were true, then you'd already beleive me, as I've proven your lies more than three times. You started out with lies your first response to me, and have gotten no respect since. When you apologize for you rude behavior and retract your lies, I'll be happy to move past calling you a proven liar. I want to make sure anyone that reads this thread knows you are a liar.

    2. Re:Check the firehose... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      as I've proven your lies more than three times
      If that is true, than it shouldn't be hard to point out even one time where I lied or you demonstrated such.

      I have asked you many times now to show where you feel I lied. You have yet to answer my request. You seem to be following the author's statement verbatim, on your insistence that people believe whatever you say after you've said it repeatedly.

      Please, show us all where I lied, and why I am such a horrible human being.

      While your at it, show us where I called for the extermination of other human beings as you want to imply. Or even where I called for people to be rounded up and imprisoned simply for being who they are and posing no threat to public safety and well-being.

      I'd really appreciate you backing up your claims against me. You have used a lot of venom against me, and I'd really appreciate you showing why you hate me so dearly. Certainly, if my lies are so prolific and horrid, it shouldn't take you long to find them and point them out. Just give us a link to a post where you feel I lied, and show us how that was a lie.

      The way you keep talking about how much I apparently lied in this thread, that should be a very easy request for you to fulfill.

      That is, if you can resist the temptation for just a moment to simply continue on with your hateful, baseless accusations.

      Have a nice day.

      I don't know what part of Alaska you are in, but I see that Anchorage is now up to about 7.5 hours of daylight. Maybe that will help your anger?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.