PDA

View Full Version : Your Manifesto



dclary
11-20-2006, 05:33 AM
Hey guys,

I'm kinda tired and bored with all the political one-upsmanship (November blues, lol).

Here's an exercise.

If you were running for office, what would your platform be?

Rules:

No attacks in your platform, unless you are attacking an abstract like poverty or illiteracy, etc.

No criticism or attacks on other platforms put forth here. This exercise is just to help you think about and decide what you're about, what you're for.

Make a compelling case.


Mine coming in next post.

dclary
11-20-2006, 05:42 AM
My manifesto:

I believe America should be about equal opportunities for all. By this, I mean that all peoples should have an opportunity to come, work, and be citizens of our great nation, so long as they provide a valuable tradeskill, be it tech, clerical, agricultural, or domestic.

To this end, I would revise our immigration policy to make it easier for lower-waged workers to come to this countrly legally. At the same time, I would toughen enforcement and penalties for any who cannot or will not abide by the new immigration policy, while at the same time trying to find a reasonable solution that is equitable both to the US and to the millions of illegal residents already here.

I believe that we should have a strong military, legal, and ethical stance in the world. As one of the world's super powers, we will always be a target of organizations wanting to strike terror or imbalance in the world, and we should work with the world's unifying bodies to promote peace throughout the world, and use our military resources to thwart those who stand against peace.

I believe that to have a strong legal stance in the world, we need to belong and participate in the world's legal accords. This means ratifying global treaties like Kyoto, participating in the World Court, and working to make sure all laws are enforced fairly and evenly throughout the US.

I believe that America will only be truly respected when we set and stand by the strictest of ethics, both political, corporate, and personal. While these rules will always be shifting in the sands of time, we have the responsibility to set a line, and then the strength to hold it.

I believe that the best capitalist understands that long-term profits always outweigh short-term profits, and to this end, a good capitalist must also be a good environmentalist. Resource management policies must be in place to both allow us to use our natural resources while at the same time ensuring future generations will have all they need in perpetuity. For non-renewable resources like petroleum, a smart capitalist should already be looking for the next energy source, and I will support any and all research and development in this way.

This is my platform for now. Maybe I'll post more later.

How about yours?

SpookyWriter
11-20-2006, 06:07 AM
This is my platform for now. Maybe I'll post more later.I can hardly wait. Not! Hhahahaaa...

blacbird
11-20-2006, 07:06 AM
I believe that the best capitalist understands that long-term profits always outweigh short-term profits

Again (as I've recently noted in another thread, and you have another rep point on its way) I find myself in agreement with much of what you say. These are ideals; they should not be confused with ideology, which is quite a different species.

But this statement gives me some pause. I've worked in a major industry at two major international corporations. And I can tell you, the top execs I worked for would never agree with the quoted statement above.

Now, you can argue these guys, who have succeeded by the only objective standard I can think of, are not "best capitalists". But I'd guess the markets largely would disagree.

Point being, that the current incarnation of the market system doesn't agree with what you say. The emphasis on short-term profit is just about absolute. You try to tell your shareholders and directors that you've forgone a quarterly profit for four or five quarters (just a year or a little more, maybe) in order to plan for bigger things down the road, guess what?

You want fries with that?

The entire market system, worldwide, is utterly dependent on short-term results. It's a horror, but what do you want to do about it? I'd guess it doesn't include anything having to do with governmental regulation.

So, in the end, it's an admirable philosophical position, having the substance of evening mist.

caw.

dclary
11-20-2006, 08:07 AM
Again (as I've recently noted in another thread, and you have another rep point on its way) I find myself in agreement with much of what you say. These are ideals; they should not be confused with ideology, which is quite a different species.

But this statement gives me some pause. I've worked in a major industry at two major international corporations. And I can tell you, the top execs I worked for would never agree with the quoted statement above.

Now, you can argue these guys, who have succeeded by the only objective standard I can think of, are not "best capitalists". But I'd guess the markets largely would disagree.

Point being, that the current incarnation of the market system doesn't agree with what you say. The emphasis on short-term profit is just about absolute. You try to tell your shareholders and directors that you've forgone a quarterly profit for four or five quarters (just a year or a little more, maybe) in order to plan for bigger things down the road, guess what?

You want fries with that?

The entire market system, worldwide, is utterly dependent on short-term results. It's a horror, but what do you want to do about it? I'd guess it doesn't include anything having to do with governmental regulation.

So, in the end, it's an admirable philosophical position, having the substance of evening mist.

caw.

I agree, blacky. I think the primary, defining problem with capitalism as practiced today, is that it is an imperfect, poor form, that doesn't take into account the necessities of existing tomorrow as well as succeeding today. To me, until our corporations understand and embrace this, they will continually be at strife both the world (depleting resources) and their internal assets, the worker (encouraging communism via unionization).

Opty
11-20-2006, 09:05 AM
I believe that the best capitalist understands that long-term profits always outweigh short-term profits...

Yes, unfortunately, most humans (even the best, most intelligent, capitalists) don't think in those terms because of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting).

What do both of those empirically prove? That humans seem to have an innate drive to be stupid.

blacbird
11-20-2006, 09:05 AM
I agree, blacky. I think the primary, defining problem with capitalism as practiced today, is that it is an imperfect, poor form, that doesn't take into account the necessities of existing tomorrow as well as succeeding today. To me, until our corporations understand and embrace this, they will continually be at strife both the world (depleting resources) and their internal assets, the worker (encouraging communism via unionization).

It isn't a matter of simply understanding and embracing this idea. As long as the largely speculative global market system demands evidence of increased performance at every quarter (or more frequently, as current trends in electronic data transfer may mandate), nobody is going to pay any attention to what might happen two or three or five years from today. We'll worry about tomorrow tomorrow, and the next day the next day. That's what allows corporate execs to lay off thousands of employees to "save costs" today, without concern about what that might do to the bottom line tomorrow.

"The market" is not likely to correct this problem. Companies planning for tomorrow might well be wiped out by companies performing for today only. Whether or not an official "government" is good or bad at doing it, it is a legitimate concern of any viable "government" to be concerned about how the "market system" is performing relative to the well-being of citizens. Pretending that somehow the "market system" is always going to self-govern is nonsense. That's how you wind up with Oliver Twist asking for more gruel.

caw.

dclary
11-20-2006, 09:47 AM
Well, I don't say eschew today's profits for tomorrow's. There just has to be a way to make money today, and money tomorrow. How freakin' hard can that be?

oswann
11-20-2006, 10:36 AM
Oh brother. I can hear Billy's little fingers snapping over his keyboard at lightening speed gearing up for this thread.



Os.

blacbird
11-20-2006, 12:05 PM
Well, I don't say eschew today's profits for tomorrow's. There just has to be a way to make money today, and money tomorrow. How freakin' hard can that be?

In many industries, a good deal hard than you think, apparently. My experience is with a major industry whose operations require a certain amount of commitment of investment forward for many years. So it is a constant matter of tension among the planners as to how much to invest and how much to return to shareholders right now. One of the ways you play this shell game can be to divide things into operating expenses and capital expenses, and squeeze the operating expenses (which get reflected in the Right Now), and conceal the capital expenses (which are down the road some distance) as much as possible. It's tricky, and results are never satisfactorily predictable, despite what spin comes out of the boardrooms.

And a hell of a lot of the tension gets driven by share prices, which, as you know, can be hellishly psychological. So there gets to be pressure to inflate those share prices in the short term, which leads to Enrons and WorldComs.

caw.

MattW
11-20-2006, 05:20 PM
I have worked in an industry that trades future risk for current cash flow. In spite of government regulation and inspection, some of the companies would rather allow their manufacturing infrastucture to crumble to save money today, while facing the risk of potentially losing great amounts of revenue due to regulatory penalties.

Or, in advance of new products, make do with what is availabe, or only plan 18 months ahead when it can take 5 years to build the correct (safe/efficient/healthy) facilities and capacity.

It's a business, and never believe the slogans that safety is first, and people are the greatest resources. One of a few times I was glad for large government agencies watching out - I can't imagine how bad it would be if there weren't any fear of shutdowns.

blacbird
11-20-2006, 11:47 PM
I have worked in an industry that trades future risk for current cash flow. In spite of government regulation and inspection, some of the companies would rather allow their manufacturing infrastucture to crumble to save money today, while facing the risk of potentially losing great amounts of revenue due to regulatory penalties.

Or, in advance of new products, make do with what is availabe, or only plan 18 months ahead when it can take 5 years to build the correct (safe/efficient/healthy) facilities and capacity.

It's a business, and never believe the slogans that safety is first, and people are the greatest resources. One of a few times I was glad for large government agencies watching out - I can't imagine how bad it would be if there weren't any fear of shutdowns.

Exactly.

caw

greglondon
11-21-2006, 04:40 AM
I vow to hold true to the principle of courage: to think and act clearly in the presence of fear. I vow to acknowledge my fear as part of being human, but I will not allow it to control me.

I will control my fear.

I will not be paralyzed or panicked by barbarian bombers, by suicidal saboteurs, by homicidal criminals with explosives. I refuse to call them terrorists because I refuse to allow them to terrorize me.

I vow to fight these individuals with a clear head even though I may feel fear.

I vow to fight them with the weapon of superior principles: truth, liberty for all, justice for all, freedom of religion for all, freedom of speech for all, freedom of dissent for all, freedom of privacy for all, freedom to vote for all, and a government that responds to the people.

I vow to apply these principles to all humankind. If clear thinking determines that action is needed to enforce these principles, then I vow to take action.

I vow to act from these principles, from the strength of character that makes me better than the barbarians and better than the cowards.

I vow not to act from anger, vengeance, or hatred. I vow not to act from fear, panic, or terror. I vow not to fight simply based on physical strength. I vow not to encourage others to succumb to their fear. I vow not to surrender my principles.

I vow to call a coward anyone who would surrender all my principles because they have succumbed to fear.

I vow to call a coward those who see enemies in every shadow, who lash out at the innocent and uninvolved, who surrender all of my principles, all in an attempt to fight their own fear.

I vow to call a coward anyone who tries to hide their fear with false bravado or with unprincipled acts of violence, including attacks on civilians, kidnappings, cruel and unusual punishments, or torture.

I vow to call a coward anyone who says we cannot win unless we sacrifice my principles. Without my principles, the only difference between me and the barbarians is the color of the uniform and the type of weapon used.

I am better than them only so long as my principles are better.
I vow to hold true to all my principles in the presence of fear.
I vow myself to courage.

http://www.couragevow.com/

William Haskins
11-21-2006, 05:50 AM
feed the belly
dazzle the eye

quell the anger
snuff the cry

make the people
forget they die

hide the truth
and spread the lie

take the land
and sell the sky

tell them how
but never why

feed the belly
dazzle the eye

panem et circenses (http://www.thenecessarylanguage.com/2006/08/panem_et_circenses_bread_and_c.html)

MacAllister
11-21-2006, 11:57 PM
Found this online, from an existing organization. It's not at all what I believe, on a ton of levels--but it made me think about the differences between ideals and the execution. There can be some drastic changes between a stated set of goals, or platform, and the reality of how that plays out. On its surface, it seems reasonable, though quite conservative, y'know? Excepting the last item, of course, which is the dead giveaway.


******* Political Agenda
1. America First!
The very first responsibility of our government is to protect the welfare(jobs, health, future) of AMERICANS - not those in Mexico, Vietnam,Somalia, Haiti, or some other third world country. It is time to take America back.

2. Drug testing for Welfare Recipients.
Not everyone who is on welfare is taking drugs. We are aware of that,but there are many, especially in housing projects in large urban areas,who are taking drugs. If they have enough money for drugs, they don't need your money. If a welfare recipient is a drug user, their welfare check,food stamps, public housing, and etc. should be cut.

3. Protect America's Birthright.
If ******* were in political power laws would be enacted that would prevent American industry and property from being sold to foreigners. Americas should be owned by Americans - not Japanese, Arabs or Jews.

4. Do away with Affirmative Action Programs.
People in America should be hired, promoted or given scholarships based on ability, not because they have the right color of skin or because we feel sorry for them or because we are trying to appease some kind of self-inflicted guilt.

5. Protect American Jobs.
Americans are loosing [sic] jobs to foreign nations because our industry is moving to Mexico to obtain cheap labor which is often only 60 or 70 cents an hour. American industry is also enticed to move to Mexico in order to save millions because of non-existing environmental laws. The criminals in Washington have passed NAFTA and are now selling us out with GATT.

6. Close our Border.
The flood of illegal aliens coming across our borders needs to be stopped.If we can put 43,000 soldiers in South Korea to protect their borders,500,000 soldiers in Saudi Arabia to protect their borders. Why can we not put troops on our borders to protect our country from the invasion of illegal aliens? We must protect the future of our children, not the future of the children of Mexico.

7. Outlaw homo-sexuality and inter-racial marriages.
Until 20 or so years ago, nearly all states had 'sodomy' and miscegenation laws and statutes that were strictly enforced. Since that time they have been repealed or are ignored, the results are obvious with the plague of AIDSnow ravaging our land. Both of these abominations against God and nature must be stopped if America is ever to return to the great Christian nation it once was.

ColoradoGuy
11-22-2006, 12:07 AM
Item #3 is also interesting.

3. Protect America's Birthright.
If ******* were in political power laws would be enacted that would prevent American industry and property from being sold to foreigners. Americas should be owned by Americans - not Japanese, Arabs or Jews.

badducky
11-22-2006, 12:09 AM
One of my ex-girlfriends was an anarchist when we left each other.

Me? You couldn't pay me, bribe me, or threaten me into Pennsylvania Avenue.

My platform: Go ask the smartest person you know, and god save you if that person is me!

MacAllister
11-22-2006, 12:09 AM
Oh, definitely. :) The thing is, I'm hearing these sorts of sentiments more and more, just lately--online and in real life.

badducky
11-22-2006, 12:11 AM
Oh, and Mac, don't tell me you cut and pasted directly. I know you had to go through and clean up their spehlinng.

Everyone I've ever met who talked like that couldn't spell "American" out loud.

edit: Looking carefully, and critically at the grammar of the above passage is increasing my head-ache too much to allow me to go into detail. However, if one begins a sentence with the word "if", one should attach a comma and complete the sentence with an independent clause.

ColoradoGuy
11-22-2006, 12:11 AM
And all this time I thought one could be both an American and a Jew.

MacAllister
11-22-2006, 12:13 AM
Badducky, actually, I did. I marked with a [sic] the misspelling I noticed, though--and obscured the organization's identity.

It's not just for drop-outs, anymore.

billythrilly7th
11-22-2006, 12:13 AM
I vow never to take the "courage vow."

Thank you and god bless America.
William H. Thrilly 7th
:)

blacbird
11-22-2006, 12:24 AM
As Mac noted, Item 7 on that "agenda" is a dead giveaway as to what these people really are about. It's obviously an Aryan Nations/KKK related group, and paying any attention to these people, other than to guard against them committing violence, is a waste of time.

caw

MacAllister
11-22-2006, 12:27 AM
Guarding against thinly-disguised racism and irrational fear of "other" is precisely where I'm going with this, blacbird.

But if I were a social conservative, I'd be carefully examining why it is my vocabulary can be so easily co-opted by these groups.

greglondon
11-22-2006, 12:35 AM
I vow never to take the "courage vow."

dclary started this by saying
"No criticism or attacks on other platforms put forth here",
but I figured that wouldn't last.

Nice going, Billy.

William Haskins
11-22-2006, 01:01 AM
But if I were a social conservative, I'd be carefully examining why it is my vocabulary can be so easily co-opted by these groups.

indeed. many on the left would also do well to examine the same thin lines that exist between their pet causes and racism, yes?

MacAllister
11-22-2006, 01:08 AM
William, absolutely. I'm deeply troubled by the links between the far left and thinly-veiled anti-semitism, especially.

It's typically not hidden inside the language of conservative economics and jingoism, when it comes from the left, though.

blacbird
11-22-2006, 01:25 AM
An aside, perhaps, but it's of interest that "traditional" conservatives (people like Dick Armey) are asking some pretty pointed questions of "neoconservatives" and "Christian-right social conservatives" vis--vis their willingness to use "big government" concepts to further their own limited spectrum of causes. A major result of the recent election has been to illustrate that "conservatism" is no more of a monolith than "liberalism" is.

caw

Bravo
11-22-2006, 01:26 AM
Guarding against thinly-disguised racism and irrational fear of "other" is precisely where I'm going with this, blacbird.

But if I were a social conservative, I'd be carefully examining why it is my vocabulary can be so easily co-opted by these groups.

not exactly relevant, but i needed some excuse to share this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNLojm0l84k

whistlelock
11-22-2006, 01:47 AM
Item #3 is also interesting.

3. Protect America's Birthright.
If ******* were in political power laws would be enacted that would prevent American industry and property from being sold to foreigners. Americas should be owned by Americans - not Japanese, Arabs or Jews. If they invest in our infrastructure, then they have an investment in our continued existence. Every business and nation that buys into an American resource/business willingly puts its interests in with ours.

We go down, and they lose billions and billions of "dollars".

SpookyWriter
11-22-2006, 02:25 AM
Found this online, from an existing organization. It's not at all what I believe, on a ton of levels--but it made me think about the differences between ideals and the execution. There can be some drastic changes between a stated set of goals, or platform, and the reality of how that plays out. On its surface, it seems reasonable, though quite conservative, y'know? Excepting the last item, of course, which is the dead giveaway.I read the list a couple times and waited quite a while before voicing my opinion. I don't like much of anything about their platform or manifesto.



1. America First! -- If you don't like it then move.

2. Drug testing for Welfare Recipients. -- Don't forget the sterilization programs for poor people.

3. Protect America's Birthright. -- Require foreigners to register and post a bond.

4. Do away with Affirmative Action Programs. -- Promote within the established system of whites only to protect our rights as bigots.

5. Protect American Jobs. -- Don't worry about quality since we don't need to export our products when we can just force them on unsuspecting Americans.

6. Close our Border. -- But keep them open in other countries so we can exploit their wealth and natural resources without regret or fear of international sanctions.

7. Outlaw homo-sexuality and inter-racial marriages. -- But allow us the freedom of sexual expression while we seduce the women around us and our wives are minding the children.



The first one was a clincher for me. I didn't need number seven to understand how far out in left field these people are with their beliefs.

billythrilly7th
11-22-2006, 02:34 AM
dclary started this by saying
"No criticism or attacks on other platforms put forth here",
but I figured that wouldn't last.

Nice going, Billy.

You think I read what dclary says? The guy is a loon!
:)

greglondon
11-22-2006, 02:39 AM
You think I read what dclary says? The guy is a loon!

totally.

:crazy:

Hey, we agree on something!

English Dave
11-22-2006, 09:33 PM
Freedom of speech is the is the key to people acting like humans. Bullies come and go, but Human Spirit remains.

It takes a Dermocracy to get rid of Bullies. Be that 4 or 8 years.

MacAllister
11-22-2006, 10:11 PM
Of course now, it is convenient to call anyone opposed to Israel's aggressive military policies an anti-semite. And that is promoted by those who deliberately confuse Israel's definition - Israel as a nation versus Israel as a Jewish state - with the agenda of disqualifying the real issue by supplanting it with supposed bigotry.Right--that's not really what I'm talking about, Bird. I'm talking about individuals of my acquaintance who are so aggressively pro-Palestinian that they insist that Israel has no right to exist, and blame all the unrest in the ME on Jews.

English Dave
11-22-2006, 10:20 PM
Right--that's not really what I'm talking about, Bird. I'm talking about individuals of my acquaintance who are so aggressively pro-Palestinian that they insist that Israel has no right to exist, and blame all the unrest in the ME on Jews.

Aggressively anything are pretty much a bunch of cvnts. Stop drinking with them.

RG570
11-22-2006, 10:27 PM
The first thing I would do is find a way to cancel the Olympics in 2010 (I'm in Canada). It's the biggest waste of money, and only benefits the rich.

Cut back the military, stop using them to fight imperialist battles and have them do something useful like maintain arctic sovereignty.

Somehow end this real estate nonsense and allow regular people to have a place to live.

Implement a guaranteed livable income for everyone, whether rich or not. People are free to spend this on drugs or hookers, but there would no longer be any excuse for people living in the streets. Anyone in such a position would be there by choice and does not need anyone's sympathy anymore.

Nationalize as many industries as possible, including all natural resources.

I would allow capitalists to do their thing if they really wanted to, but they'd have quite a difficult time with it.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the premise that I alone have my own personal platform for the entire country, since I do not believe in "leadership". My ultimate goal would be to end the paternalistic style of government we have, and allow a single-class society to govern itself in a sort of anarcho-syndicalist way. As long as people have productive choice, and everyone is honestly equal, that's all we really need.

Jean Marie
11-22-2006, 10:29 PM
I read the list a couple times and waited quite a while before voicing my opinion. I don't like much of anything about their platform or manifesto.



The first one was a clincher for me. I didn't need number seven to understand how far out in left field these people are with their beliefs.
all sounds sick and twisted, to me. don't even want to know who they are--just glad I'm not one of them.

English Dave
11-22-2006, 10:35 PM
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the premise that I alone have my own personal platform for the entire country, since I do not believe in "leadership".

Neither do I. And I'm grown up enough to believe that Democracy isn't the same as ''leadership''

I don't know what an ''anarcho-syndcalist'' way is. But it sounds groovey.

billythrilly7th
11-23-2006, 02:42 AM
Billy's Manifesto: N/A

oswann
11-23-2006, 01:13 PM
The first thing I would do is find a way to cancel the Olympics in 2010 (I'm in Canada). It's the biggest waste of money, and only benefits the rich.

Cut back the military, stop using them to fight imperialist battles and have them do something useful like maintain arctic sovereignty.

Somehow end this real estate nonsense and allow regular people to have a place to live.

Implement a guaranteed livable income for everyone, whether rich or not. People are free to spend this on drugs or hookers, but there would no longer be any excuse for people living in the streets. Anyone in such a position would be there by choice and does not need anyone's sympathy anymore.

Nationalize as many industries as possible, including all natural resources.

I would allow capitalists to do their thing if they really wanted to, but they'd have quite a difficult time with it.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the premise that I alone have my own personal platform for the entire country, since I do not believe in "leadership". My ultimate goal would be to end the paternalistic style of government we have, and allow a single-class society to govern itself in a sort of anarcho-syndicalist way. As long as people have productive choice, and everyone is honestly equal, that's all we really need.


Oh brother, you should come to France you'd probably be elected.

Os.

dclary
11-23-2006, 10:09 PM
totally.

:crazy:

Hey, we agree on something!

Ah Christ. I was wondering why my apocalypse clock ticked another notch yesterday.

Bartholomew
11-23-2006, 10:16 PM
Billy's Manifesto: N/A

He doesn't want anything to stick to him when he runs for real. :)

SC Harrison
11-23-2006, 11:00 PM
Right--that's not really what I'm talking about, Bird. I'm talking about individuals of my acquaintance who are so aggressively pro-Palestinian that they insist that Israel has no right to exist, and blame all the unrest in the ME on Jews.

It comes from filtering information to fit into preconceived beliefs, and extremists from both sides are guilty of this.

If they start from the premise that Israel had no right to claim the territory, whatever acts the Palistinians (or other entities) engage in is, if not acceptable, at least understandable.

If they start from the premise that Israel does have rights to the territory, and are beset on all sides by those who want to see them destroyed, then any steps Israel takes to secure their continued existence are, if not acceptable, at least understandable.

I believe the only way to move forward is for Israel to continue to remove settlements from the occupied territories including the West Bank (not just wall them off), even though some of those settlements were there long before 1948. It won't be easy, and it will not put an (immediate) end to the violence, but Israel cannot continue to govern a free state and a police state at the same time.

SC Harrison
11-24-2006, 05:58 AM
I guess it's too late:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27915

Speaking on behalf of the Lord, an unnamed, non-denominational representative of Heaven said: "God only promised humanity that He would never again flood the entire Earth. He never said He wouldn't flood specific areas."

The most recent, clearest sign of the Second Deluge came last Thursday, when a tersely worded press statement from God's angelic hosts ominously stated, "If there are any species native to the area that you would prefer not to see go extinct, we strongly suggest you begin gathering them two by two."

That should teach people to not take me too seriously. ;)

Unique
11-24-2006, 06:29 PM
I thought this was the best part:

"You want to keep running each other over with tanks and strapping dynamite to yourselves, killing women and children in pursuit of your extremist political positions, that's just fine. Let's see how well you carry out your murderous agendas under 800 feet of water."

engmajor2005
11-28-2006, 11:19 PM
1. Clearly define "seperation of church and state" as just that--a seperation of church and state. Enforce it.

2. Eliminate the space program. Good intentions, but while there are still people starving on the street it's a waste of money.

3. Cut the military by eighty percent.

4. Institute a program to help find jobs for those directly affected by items three and four, putting their skills to use as teachers, researchers, public service people, etc..

5. Socialize medical care and education.

6. Make legal immigration very easy, meaning you submit an application and if you're not a wanted felon in your native country then you are a US citizen. Congratulations.

7. Legalize drugs and prostitution, then tax and regulate the Hell out of both of 'em.

8. Call for strict laws governing the humane treatment of animals used for research, with prison sentences for those that break them.

9. Establish a legal definition for free-range and organic produce (again, meaning just what it says: free-range and organic). Make such food items tax free.

10. Establish maximum and minimum prices for consumer goods, then tax the Hell out of socially irresponsible companies.

11. While I'm at it, establish a legal definition for socially responsible/irresponsible corporate behavior.

12. Make both direct and indirect censorship illegal and punishable by law. Meaning no more movie or video game ratings (indirect censorship), parental advisory stickers (indirect), removing books from libraries due to patron complaints (direct), or telling teachers what they can/can't teach in class so long as what they teach is pertinent to the subject material.

13. Abolish the death penalty.

14. Establish a sliding system for income tax. The more you make, the less stays in your pocket, with no more than 95% of your income going to taxes. And before you cry foul, consider this: a person making $10,000,000 and paying 95% of their income in taxes still has $500,000 left after taxes. More than enough to live off of and enjoy more than a few luxuries. And Bill Gates still makes $365,000,000 a year (or a million dollars a day).

15. Legalize homosexual marriage nationwide.

16. Centralize the government (probably have to do that first...). Fedualism is dead people.

That's about it right now. I'm sure I'll think of some other things later.

aghast
11-28-2006, 11:36 PM
i vote for a 'let everyone be the same and deport all foreigners and screw everyone who is not american' america - god bless us

engmajor2005
11-28-2006, 11:41 PM
i vote for a 'let everyone be the same and deport all foreigners and screw everyone who is not american' america - god bless us

Please tell me that you're being sarcastic.

William Haskins
11-28-2006, 11:57 PM
Please tell me that you're being sarcastic.

i was tempted to say the same thing about your post.

jst5150
11-29-2006, 12:10 AM
Hey, look --CAKE!

engmajor2005
11-29-2006, 02:41 AM
i was tempted to say the same thing about your post.

And my answer would've been nope. You are talking to a bona-fide, card-carrying, big-government, liberal.

billythrilly7th
11-29-2006, 02:48 AM
And my answer would've been nope. You are talking to a bona-fide, card-carrying, big-government, liberal.

Many parts of your manifesto was...

:ROFL:

Thank you.
:)

engmajor2005
11-29-2006, 02:49 AM
Many parts of your manifesto was...

:ROFL:

Thank you.
:)

You're quite welcome. Glad I could entertain you.

engmajor2005
11-29-2006, 02:50 AM
And if you'll point out the funnier bits, I'll be sure to make them even more leftist for you viewing pleasure.

billythrilly7th
11-29-2006, 02:51 AM
And if you'll point out the funnier bits, I'll be sure to make them even more leftist for you viewing pleasure.

I think they're pretty obvious to the average viewer. No need to point them out.

Good luck with them.
:)

TsukiRyoko
11-29-2006, 02:54 AM
We'll all be poor, so no one is poor.

I'll rub your feet.

Everyone must wear beads in their hair.

Daily chocolate will be a requirement.

Vote for Tsuki.

dclary
11-29-2006, 03:07 AM
You had me at rub.

billythrilly7th
11-29-2006, 03:08 AM
Daily chocolate will be a requirement.

Will milk be made available?

engmajor2005
11-29-2006, 03:13 AM
Daily chocolate will be a requirement.



I've found my VP!

Hopefully.

I didn't find any of my manifesto funny; no funnier than a Liberatarian Guns for Tots program.

billythrilly7th
11-29-2006, 03:18 AM
no funnier than a Liberatarian Guns for Tots program.

Why do you hate water guns, eng?
;)

engmajor2005
11-29-2006, 03:41 AM
Why do you hate water guns, eng?
;)

Absolutely nothing. Water guns that is.

dclary
11-29-2006, 04:01 AM
I have questions about your platform.


2. Eliminate the space program. Good intentions, but while there are still people starving on the street it's a waste of money.NASA gets 15 billion dollars a year, compared to 581 billion dollars to Health, 562 billion to social security and 72 billion to education. It's not a lot of money, relatively speaking (a little more than 1/2 a percent of the federal budget) and the potential benefits of that spending FAR outweigh the actual cost.

3. Cut the military by eighty percent.
Iran: 11 million soldiers (16% of their population), 4 billion dollars (2% of GDP),
China: 7 million soldiers (1/2% of their pop), 81 billion dollars (3.6% of gdp)
North Korea: 6 million soldiers (26% pop) , 5 billion dollars (12.5% gdp)
Russia: 3 million soldiers (2% pop), 18 billion dollars (1% gdp),
India: 3.7 million soldiers (1.5% pop), 19 billion dollars (2.5% gdp)
Your version of America, with 80% cut in military: 460,000 soldiers (1/10th of a percent), 103 billion dollars (8%).

While I would agree with you that our spending is terribly misappropriated for the military, I disagree mightily that we spend too much. We just spend it in the wrong ways. An 80% cut would be devastating to our ablity to field a competitive armed force against any other powerful nation on the planet.

9. Establish a legal definition for free-range and organic produce (again, meaning just what it says: free-range and organic). Make such food items tax free.Why tax-free? All foods should be taxed equally, if they're to be taxed at all.


10. Establish maximum and minimum prices for consumer goods, then tax the Hell out of socially irresponsible companies.Only because I haven't heard this one before... What is the purpose of this?


12. Make both direct and indirect censorship illegal and punishable by law. Meaning no more movie or video game ratings (indirect censorship), parental advisory stickers (indirect), removing books from libraries due to patron complaints (direct), or telling teachers what they can/can't teach in class so long as what they teach is pertinent to the subject material.While I agree with you in part for the second two items, aren't ratings simply to help people make purchasing decisions? If parents want to prevent their children from listening to vulgarity in music, or seeings **** at the movies, they should have that right.[/quote]


I have issues with most of your platform, of course, but as the OP stated, this is not a debate or attack thread, so I'm not calling any of them out. But I would like to know more about the specific points above.

engmajor2005
11-29-2006, 04:30 AM
I have questions about your platform.

NASA gets 15 billion dollars a year, compared to 581 billion dollars to Health, 562 billion to social security and 72 billion to education. It's not a lot of money, relatively speaking (a little more than 1/2 a percent of the federal budget) and the potential benefits of that spending FAR outweigh the actual cost.

Don't get me wrong. I think that the space program is a great thing, but even that small amount could be better spent on health, education, social security and what not. After all, as far as I see, we're not spending enough on health and education; there are still sick and uneducated people out there.



Iran: 11 million soldiers (16% of their population), 4 billion dollars (2% of GDP),
China: 7 million soldiers (1/2% of their pop), 81 billion dollars (3.6% of gdp)
North Korea: 6 million soldiers (26% pop) , 5 billion dollars (12.5% gdp)
Russia: 3 million soldiers (2% pop), 18 billion dollars (1% gdp),
India: 3.7 million soldiers (1.5% pop), 19 billion dollars (2.5% gdp)
Your version of America, with 80% cut in military: 460,000 soldiers (1/10th of a percent), 103 billion dollars (8%).

While I would agree with you that our spending is terribly misappropriated for the military, I disagree mightily that we spend too much. We just spend it in the wrong ways. An 80% cut would be devastating to our ablity to field a competitive armed force against any other powerful nation on the planet.

I believe that our military should be strictly defensive and reactionary, and involved on foreign soil only if absolutely necessary. Of course, a cut in military size would go with a cut in military activity. And maybe 80% is too big of a cut, but I would certainly fight for a cut by at least 40% percent.



Why tax-free? All foods should be taxed equally, if they're to be taxed at all.

The idea is that by first defining free-range and organic as just that, then making those foods tax free, then consumers will be drawn to them (as they already are) and would encourage companies to adapt the (legally defined) practice of free-range and organic farming. This would lead to less animal cruelty, less artificial ingredients, and less environmental damage.



Only because I haven't heard this one before... What is the purpose of this?

Establishing maximum prices would eliminate companies making their customers pay their taxes for them; if you can only raise your prices so high then you have to pony up at least some of the taxes yourself. Minimum prices would allow smaller businesses to compete; if Wal-Mart can't out-bid Mom and Pop, them Mom and Pop stands a better chance.



While I agree with you in part for the second two items, aren't ratings simply to help people make purchasing decisions? If parents want to prevent their children from listening to vulgarity in music, or seeings **** at the movies, they should have that right.

There are plenty of other means to find out the content of entertainment media, and if there was no rating system these resources would be kicked into overdrive. These to me are not censorship; they are likened to Consumer's Reports. Ratings and labels scream at you at the onset, and are often used as the sole judging factor for people making these decisions.



I have issues with most of your platform, of course, but as the OP stated, this is not a debate or attack thread, so I'm not calling any of them out. But I would like to know more about the specific points above.

I hope that I have satisfied you wanting to know more, even if I still haven't convinced you.

William Haskins
11-29-2006, 04:58 AM
I hope that I have satisfied you wanting to know more, even if I still haven't convinced you.

if you've convinced him, i'm putting my head in the oven.

Bravo
11-29-2006, 05:03 AM
im holding my breath for you to do that.

(one of us is gonna die tonite)

William Haskins
11-29-2006, 05:08 AM
it was bound to happen eventually.

dclary
11-29-2006, 05:11 AM
Don't get me wrong. I think that the space program is a great thing, but even that small amount could be better spent on health, education, social security and what not. After all, as far as I see, we're not spending enough on health and education; there are still sick and uneducated people out there. Fair enough. We disagree here, but I understand where you're coming from.


I believe that our military should be strictly defensive and reactionary, and involved on foreign soil only if absolutely necessary. Of course, a cut in military size would go with a cut in military activity. And maybe 80% is too big of a cut, but I would certainly fight for a cut by at least 40% percent.I don't think 40% would be unreasonable if we at the same time streamline our spending so that the moneys left could be spent more wisely.


The idea is that by first defining free-range and organic as just that, then making those foods tax free, then consumers will be drawn to them (as they already are) and would encourage companies to adapt the (legally defined) practice of free-range and organic farming. This would lead to less animal cruelty, less artificial ingredients, and less environmental damage.Noble, but short-sighted. What do you do when all food companies *do* adapt to this? Retax them again, giving them no incentive to stay on the program, or never tax them again?


Establishing maximum prices would eliminate companies making their customers pay their taxes for them; if you can only raise your prices so high then you have to pony up at least some of the taxes yourself. Minimum prices would allow smaller businesses to compete; if Wal-Mart can't out-bid Mom and Pop, them Mom and Pop stands a better chance.
There's some interesting points here, but I'm not sure if you've thought it all through. 1st, consumers *always* pay *all* of a company's taxes, because taxes are paid from profits and profits are made from sales to consumers. 2nd, I like the idea of keeping larger companies from squeezing smaller companies by undercutting them, but I'm not sure how you're going to be able to regulate this. For one, you're going to have to set up a beauracracy that's responsible for establishing the accepted low and high-end price for every single item sold in America. Will there be regional controls -- things cost more in Manhattan than they do in Des Moines? What about a company's ability to have a sale, or offer percent-off coupons? Like I said, I think this is a great thing to investigate, I'm not sure this is a solution that's any better than the problem, or, at least I don't think it solves this particular problem.

dclary
11-29-2006, 05:12 AM
Sorry guys, heads out of ovens. Unless you're looking for turkey drippins, then try the second oven, we baked pies in the first one.

Bravo
11-29-2006, 05:12 AM
need.....verdict.....

was dclary agreeing or no?

must breathe....

aghast
11-29-2006, 05:15 AM
(see thread about microwaved baby) hey youre not funny - I heckle

BottomlessCup
11-29-2006, 05:17 AM
The people who are getting off the elevator get out BEFORE the people who are getting on get into the elevator.


If we can get people to abide by this rule, I'm pretty sure there'll be a cascade effect throughout humanity leading to utopia.

The rest is just details.

dclary
11-29-2006, 05:18 AM
need.....verdict.....

was dclary agreeing or no?

must breathe....

I was agreeing that he'd given me the information I'd asked for. I most certainly have not been convinced that any of it would work. But that's not the purpose of this thread, so just read that and jettison it from your wee little brain, Q-man.

Bravo
11-29-2006, 05:19 AM
okay, sounds like a draw then.

haskins and i get to live again.

plus, i think that was a guiness record for longest breath-holding.
so one good thing came out of this thread.

thank you.

English Dave
11-29-2006, 05:24 AM
I don't give a crap about organised religion.

That's all I have to say.

William Haskins
11-29-2006, 06:20 AM
haskins and i get to live again.

yay.

robeiae
11-29-2006, 06:29 AM
boo.

William Haskins
11-29-2006, 06:30 AM
indeed.

engmajor2005
11-29-2006, 07:36 AM
dclary:

Re: Using Economics to Encourage Organic Farming

I would think that never taxing said items would encourage consumers to buy them, hence encouraging companies to stick to such a system. Of course the American consumer is a fickle person, but I say the current system isn't working so change it. When it stops working, change it again. I think a system like the one on my "platform" would work just fine for a long time.

Re: Corporate Taxes and Maximum/Minimum Prices

Some regional control would be needed, but nowhere near as diversified as it is now. There is no need for prices on some items to be so different from state to state. I mean come on; Applebee's is a national chain. Do the prices in South Carolina have to be so different from the prices in North Carolina?

The maximum prices thing is a question for an economist to work out. I'm sure it's doable, as is the minimum prices. But were I ever to become President, I would have so many advisors it would be crazy. I freely admit that when it comes to some things, I only have ideas--not solutions.

And besides, I will probably never run for President or any other political office. I have too strong a backbone. I don't believe in this fight the fights we can win shite. I say fight 'em all, and when you lose dust yourself off and keep fighting. That attitude would never fly in Washington.

robeiae
11-29-2006, 07:44 AM
The maximum prices thing is a question for an economist to work out. I'm sure it's doable, as is the minimum prices.Sure it's doable. But it will lead to massive shortages of all goods and services that have such restrictions. Any compotent economist could point that out.

Want a current day example? Rent control.

William Haskins
11-29-2006, 07:44 AM
I will probably never run for President or any other political office.

thank you.

SpookyWriter
11-29-2006, 07:55 AM
I like pumpkin pie.

William Haskins
11-29-2006, 07:58 AM
then you shall toil in the pumpkin combine.

BottomlessCup
11-29-2006, 08:13 AM
There is no need for prices on some items to be so different from state to state. I mean come on; Applebee's is a national chain. Do the prices in South Carolina have to be so different from the prices in North Carolina?

Cost of living varies from state to state. Employers have to pay their employees (and themselves) more than they do in other places. So, they have to charge more.

The cost of living is higher in nice/popular places because more people want to live there.

Also, things have to be transported to places where they aren't made locally. (Like produce, as a simple example.) Transportation is expensive. People in Wisconsin have to pay more for pineapple because pineapple doesn't grow in Wisconsin.

SpookyWriter
11-29-2006, 08:20 AM
then you shall toil in the pumpkin combine.Wearily, I'm sure.

William Haskins
11-29-2006, 08:32 AM
"from each, according to his ability..."

oswann
11-29-2006, 09:52 AM
"from each, according to his ability..."

But I don't want to be a porn star.


Os.

robeiae
11-29-2006, 04:12 PM
And I don't want to be a mattress tester. But here we are...

MattW
11-29-2006, 05:28 PM
I can live with being a professional belcher.

oswann
11-29-2006, 05:48 PM
We are such guys.


Os.

TsukiRyoko
11-29-2006, 06:17 PM
You had me at rub. If only politicians gave back to the community nowdays.... :roll:

jst5150
11-29-2006, 07:37 PM
If only the Whos could live happier in Whoville ...

MacAllister
11-29-2006, 08:31 PM
William will run the local pessimism and despair cult. That's important, too.

badducky
11-29-2006, 08:53 PM
An open source political manifesto ("Wikifesto") seems like a better and better idea after reading this thread.

Imagine, a political party with a contrarian clinic and a pumpkin patch!

William Haskins
11-29-2006, 09:02 PM
William will run the local pessimism and despair cult. That's important, too.

ouch.

robeiae
11-29-2006, 09:04 PM
Could be worse. She could have put you in charge of the petting zoo. Again.

Bravo
11-29-2006, 09:05 PM
mac's already running this subsection though.

MacAllister
11-29-2006, 10:27 PM
I find no small amount of comfort in the fact that, as far apart as all of us are in terms of political philosophy, we get along so very well. For the most part.

William, I've got to say, there was a tremendous hole in AW in general--and TIO in particular--while you were gone. I'm awfully glad you came back.

jst5150
11-29-2006, 10:49 PM
I find no small amount of comfort in the fact that, as far apart as all of us are in terms of political philosophy, we get along so very well. For the most part.
... said Sadat as he stared across the table toward Kissenger and Menachem Begin.

dclary
11-29-2006, 11:36 PM
I find no small amount of comfort in the fact that, as far apart as all of us are in terms of political philosophy, we get along so very well. For the most part.

William, I've got to say, there was a tremendous hole in AW in general--and TIO in particular--while you were gone. I'm awfully glad you came back.

Billy and I sit right next to each other, on the other end of the uncool-kids' table from Robeiae.

robeiae
11-30-2006, 12:10 AM
That's nice. Normally, I have to sit at a table all by my lonesome...

dclary
11-30-2006, 12:10 AM
Holy crap I spelled your name right.