<p>I could discuss a lot more I know left several things untouched, but you can't design a perfect society with 11 ideas. This is something that would take weeks to write about, I have the ideas in my head, but I don't want to go in that much detail. But if I wanted to discuss other things it would be Iraq and China. Basically more details about foreign policy. My first 3 points were the most important I think because that safeguards democracy at home.</p>
<p>I AM DONE.</p>
<p>Very Well. </p>
<p>I will ask everyone to comment now. I'll be adding my thoughts later this evening. All I ask is that we keep it civil and based upon what Confused has offered.</p>
<p>Confused, I'll ask that you not add any more ideas aside from the ones you offered. Let's ensure those are discussed before we pile more on. By all means, feel free to discuss with those posting.</p>
<p>One last thing. Let's try and keep it in some sort of order. Try and address Confused's points in the order he presented them, or we'll be stepping on each other.</p>
<p>Folks, my answers will be delayed, perhaps as much as a week. I'll be traveling, with no guarantee of time or internet access.</p>
<p>Be nice to the poor kid. He's just Confused. ;)</p>
<p>Confused: I'm not gonna express my own ideas or anything, but I will say that I am a very conservative person, and from what I've gathered, you are very liberal. However, it was interesting to hear what you had to say, and thanks for takin the time to write that. I'm not saying I agree with you, just that it was interesting to see what you had to say.</p>
<p>You know if I had a nickel for every time you made a remark about "Confused" I'd have enough money to buy a Jag. When I made that s/n it was because I was/am confused about what university to choose, not MY POLITICAL BELIEFS.</p>
<p>ps. JDSMITH if you want to challenge anything i said , by all means, go ahead. I look forward to dissent. And I am not an idealogue of either spectrum I make my opinions independently of any political party, I am sure there are ideas here that liberals will handily reject.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You know if I had a nickel for every time you made a remark about "Confused" I'd have enough money to buy a Jag. When I made that s/n it was because I was/am confused about what university to choose, not MY POLITICAL BELIEFS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that may be very true, but you can't deny that it's deliciously ironic and appropriate! ;)</p>
<p>not appropiate, my ideas are well-thought out .</p>
<p>THAT'S IT? Absolute power, a forum of people listening and all you can come up with is a manifesto of ideas, thoughts, observations, and pontifications? Where are the action points? Your action points--the few that I could discren--get lost in all the words. I don't have time to go through all the drivel but other than eliminating the Senate and mandating health care, perhaps taxation of churces, it was hard to discren what you would DO. Perhaps, we have better understanding of what you believe, but not a clear vision of what how you would act. [And wouldn't it be fascinating to know more about your upbringing?] So, could you perhaps summarize your thoughts into a manageable list?</p>
<p>You will learn that there is a huge difference between the academic spewing of thoughts on how things should or could be better and actually having to make a decision. Leaders DECIDE on something and then act. [In that regard, I will have to give credit to GWB for deciding on something and, perhaps pig-headedly, sticking to his guns. I would even agree with Z about giving him credit for that.] Sometimes with significant consequences that mean the death of others. Most of the time, to the dissatisfaction of a significant part of the population.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Health care. I think I agree with you in terms of universal health care. If every person were covered, perhaps in a government-sponsored plan then costs would go down for everybody. This is the nature of insurance.</p></li>
<li><p>Immigration. There should be the free movement of workers in North America. IN my dealings w/ immigrant--Mexican Immigrants, most of them do not want to become U.S. citizen because of patriotic beliefs in the American way. They only want to become citizens so they are not in danger of deportation. If people were allowed to work in this country--working at jobs that many Americans don't want--and permitted to traverse the border freely, we could more effectively utilize the resources directed to border controls. [Beside, I would much rather register those that cross and know where than they are than force them underground.]</p></li>
<li><p>Economy. Spend some significant dollars on the border incentivizing business to improve the economy along the border. This would have a more significant effect on migraton than most anything else that could be done.</p></li>
<li><p>More oversight over corporations. What does this mean? The U.S. is one of the most regulated economies in the world--not as much as some but certainly more than others. Again, this is so easy to say but very different to implement. What about EPA, what about the IRS, what about OSHA. The US has plenty of regulation; its enforcement that is sometimes problematic. It's real easy to pick on WalMart, but for every WalMart critic you talk to, I bet they sure enjoy everday low prices.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>5a. Education. Withold federal funding to all school districts that have fewer than 5,000 students. [Pick a number.] There are too many resources going to administration of small districts in Texas; I would guess this is a common problme throughout the nation. Encourage the merging of small districts, eliminate bureacracy, and direct more resources to in-class educational resources.</p>
<p>5b. Police Departments. The same could be said of small police departments, sheriff departments, constables, etc. etc. etc. Merge them into the predominate city department; in many parts of the country a city department may cover several counties. I would eliminate local sheriff departments and merge them under the state jurisdiciton. </p>
<p>6a. Consolidate federal police and enforcement departments. Its been talked about for years: merging DEA with FBI with Marshalls, etc. Just do it! </p>
<p>6b. At the same time, merge intelligence responsiblities under ONE individual. Under that person, there could be divisions coordinating military intelligence, domestice, foreign counter-intellgience, etc.</p>
<p>7a. Military. We have the finest military in the world. I would keep it that way. Not only that, I would REALLY [not just pay lip service] listen to the commanders in the field and encourage them to tell me if they think we need more troops. No . . . I would wait to for them to tell me; I would DECIDE that more troops are needed and send them in.</p>
<p>7b. Draft. Since we need more troops, I would institute a draft. No exceptions; pinheads included. Two years of mandatory service + four months of bootcamp would do wonders for the "self-esteem" of the misguided, unappreciative youth of this country. When you read a book about the "Greatest Generation" and "Flags of our Father," you know that our current youth don't begin to measure up.</p>
<p>7c. Terrorism. Where is Bin Laden. My instruction to the government would be to "Get Bin Laden." [While the troops are at it, I would instruct them to remain focused on terrorism and get the rest of the SOBs that are out there. No more hollow threats--"You are either with us or against us"--to countries that continue to harbor terrorists.] My next instruction would be to either establish martial law in Iraq [now that we are there] and get the situation under control or I will get somebody that can. I do not want to see anymore young people die just so a society that wants to kill Christians--see Afghanistan--can be established.</p>
<p>8a. Foreign Policy. You didn't address the hard questions. What about Iran? The only two realistic answers are: Bomb the hell out of them or leave them alone. What is your answer? North Korea? Come on Mr. All Powerful . . . what is your action plan?. [Don't feed us a bunch of pablum about how Bush or previous pathetic American imperials screwed it up . . . WHAT WILL YOU DO?]</p>
<p>9 Morals. Okay, the U.S. is a moral cesspool. So be it. </p>
<p>While you are at it . . . I disagree with Zaphod. The notion of absolute power is too easy. The U.S. is not a dictatorship; try to explain your beliefs within a Constitutional framework. If you can't do that, then you are just one more snot-nosed kid who doesn't have a clue; a kid that just likes to talk big because he knows there is no way in hell anything he proposes is going to happen.</p>
<p>There, we probably agree on more than you might imagine . . .I just don't like having to read through a bunch of manifesto crap to try and determine what it is you might do. Re-read the junk and list your top ten priorities. Try to do it Constitutionally.</p>
<p>See if you can respond without calling anybody names!</p>
<p>
[quote]
not appropiate, my ideas are well-thought out .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, they're not, but that's not due to any lack of intelligence. It's due to the naivete common to kids your age combined with a healthy dose of BS you've been fed by adults who should know better, or who DO know better, but have ulterior motives for basically lying to you.</p>
<p>Don't worry. We'll set you straight by showing you where your ideas fail. </p>
<p>Incidentally, not all of them are wrong. For example, I also support school vouchers. Too bad so few liberals do. Make your statement around an NEA member and you're putting your life at risk.</p>
<p>Here I'll adress Bill based on his list.</p>
<ol>
<li>I am glad you agree with my idea, but most Republicans, sadly, don't.</li>
<li>Nice Idea! I agree</li>
<li>I agree, but again, I mentioned this in my #9.</li>
<li>Still needs more regulations. See what I said about lobbying in #1-3, the regulators have connections to the corporations they are supposed to regulate. That's the problem. And as to Wal-Mart, the reason why they have low prices is because the American taxpayer has to indirectly pay for the health-care that Wal-Mart isn't paying.</li>
<li>a-b. I agree.</li>
<li>a-b. I agree, but I wasn't discussing these things.
7.a. I agree, but again. Bush has been politicking and refused to increase #'s because of politics.
b. That would spark a large protest in this country. How about start being more peaceful?
c. Its funny you mention Bin Laden and speak with malice about countries that harbor terrorists. America trained Bin Laden in the 80's when he was supporting U.S. Interests, so how can we blame other countries that are doing the same? Martial law won't help. The reason that insurgents have power in Iraq is because they have popular support from the people Establishing martial law would give them even more support!</li>
<li>With Iran, I would suggest working with them about Iraq and going from there. Both America and Iran benefit from a peaceful Iraq because 1. America wants to get out. and 2. Iran would benefit because a democratic Iraq would favor their interests because Iraq has a Shia majority. I would leave them alone because the reason they want nuclear bombs is as a defense measure. Noone is gonna use a weapon, that's just stupid. B. With No. Ko. , you forgot one thing. The reason why So. Ko. doesn't want to unite with No. Ko is because it would collapse their economy because of immigration. America should start a 1 on 1 dialogue with No. Ko. and encourage a union of the two states.</li>
<li>I have no idea how to respond to this.</li>
</ol>
<p>P.S. The reason why I was giving my ideas and trying to spend a long time explaining my position is because if I just said do this, do that half the people would tell me to back it up and say its all liberal drivel. I was trying to explain my position.</p>
<p>Bill, I appreciate your post a lot. I don't have time to respond to confused's post right now, but a lot of what you said I strongly agree with. I particularly liked some of the things you said about public works, etc. Police, schools and MOST importantly the military. I've said countless times that my generation is quite pathetic, and if there were a draft people WOULD (most people anyway) grow up.</p>
<p>I'll continue later when I have more time.</p>
<p>Where's the dissent?</p>
<p>Fair enough. . . you are probably right. A suggestion then: make your point and then explain whatever idea it is you are proposing. Much of what you had to say gets lost in the manifesto-style criticism of everything.</p>
<p>Whatever we may have done to support Bin-Laden in the 80s is history. The current consideration is that he has attacked this country and now he deserves to die. Using your logic, we would have nothing to do with the Japanese. International relations are in a constant state of flux, enemies become friends and vice versa. </p>
<p>My list, including things you were not asked to address, is an example of how you might more clearly make your points.</p>
<p>Remember, vis-a-vis 7b, we are talking about what you would do if you were in charge. [Constitutionally, of course.] I would institute a draft.
Being peaceful is not in man's nature. There have always been wars and there will always be wars. I want to be on the winning side, plain and simple. A draft, even if it include a public service component, solves a lot of problems.</p>
<p>If you are ever a small business owner, you will better appreciate regulation. George McGovern, one of the most liberal Senators of his time, when he retired, became the owner of a small business. He is quoted as saying if he had known the difficulty of operating a business in this country because of all the regualtions that he had spawned, he would have been more careful. Over-regulation chokes life out of business. Are there abuses? Certainly. We still have the best economic balance in the world.</p>
<p>Your view of Iraq ignores history and Iraq's non-relationship with the U.S. You are too quick to condemn the U.S. and everything it stands for; you are too quick to accept all others as being morally superior to U.S. policy makers. Basically, if you trust Iraq to be responsible with nuclear weapons--considering a stated policy of destroying Israel [and I am no particularly big fan of Israel either]--then you don't seem to understand political realities. A nuclear Iran would be destablizing; as much as I think it may be unfair to criticize Iran when countries such as Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, the fact is Iran is not a responsible player. But I doubt the international community will do anything about it, so it doesn't matter.</p>
<p>Although it is too simplistic to say, it may be applicable: If you think things are better elsewhere, then you should consider moving.</p>
<p>I wasn't really asking for a response to #9. Republicans, mostly, spend too much time worrying about the morals of others. I wish they would spend more time reducing government spending and regulation. Democrats, on the other hand, spend too much time trying to let everybody do whatever the hell it is they want to do. I just want government to stay the hell out of my life; I wouldn't want either of my children to be homosexuals, have abortions, or marry somebody too weird. Call me homophobic, call me old-fashioned, call me whatever you want: I don't care.</p>
<p>Adults will listen when you try to make sense.</p>
<p>I have too much work to do right now to continue posting for the rest of the night, but I love how you said "Iraq" instead of "Iran". I am not going to make a remark here, but if I had done that Zaphod would have started a long diatribe about me being an idiot.</p>
<p>I'll only call you an idiot if you insist on sounding or behaving like one. You were doing so in the other thread. So far in this one you are simply and profoundly mistaken. There is a big difference.</p>
<p>Be patient. The dissent will come, and I (as well as others) will show you the error of some of your ideas. Use it as a learning experience.</p>
<p>my views are right, yours are wrong. If you want to say I am wrong, prove it!</p>
<p>Sigh... You try and be nice to some people...</p>
<p>Before I begin, let me give you some advice. It is well-intentioned.</p>
<p>First off, you are a teenager. By definition, therefore, you know just enough to be dangerous. You have not had the time to evaluate your positions against reality in the context of an adult operating solo in society. I and most others here are at least twice your age. You should be asking more questions and making fewer statements. You'll learn more that way, and not come across like a pompous ass, which at your age impresses no one.</p>
<p>Why do I know this? Because I was once 17 and stupid. I believed in gun control, and redistribution of wealth, and universal healthcare, and government-run elections, and socialistic control of property, and all of that. I did so because I had an idealistic vision for the world that was untempered by experience and analytical thought. Time, education, expereince, and challenges to my positions changed all that. You are now starting down that road. Believe me, you at 17 have come up with NOTHING that hasn't been thought of before.</p>
<p>Additionally, at your age, you have no earthly right to hate this country as you do, nor to be spouting some of the stuff you've spouted. You don't have a job of any consequence, you don't pay a damn in taxes, you don't own property, you don't vote, etc. The fact that you are filled with such venom can only be because the "adults" you've hung around with have poisoned your mind, all the time telling you that it's OUR side that hates. You have also been hanging around a bunch of people who love to throw around statements like "the south assigns grades by skin color", but rarely have anything to back that up. DO NOT fall prey to them.</p>
<p>So, open up that mind of yours and listen to those who have already been where you are and thought what you think, and found it to be terribly wrong.</p>
<p>Have to fall back on the attitude of a 17-year old don't you. WAAAAHHHHH.... I am right, you are wrong.</p>
<p>There are not too many times that I would say Zaphod is correct; this, however, is one of them. He initiated this thread to give you every opportunity to present yourself as a mature, thinking individual. WAAAAHHHHHH. . . I am right, you are wrong.</p>
<p>Everything Zaphod said in this last post is correct. WAAAAHHHH. . . .I am right, you are wrong. It is almost comical.</p>
<p>It is said that the more you have to conserve, the more conservative you become.</p>
<p>I ACTUALLY will be busy the next few days; making money and paying taxes. Damn glad to pay 'em too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. No more private fundraising for nationwide campaigns. This includes the election of the President and the Congress. The McCain-Feingold Bill was a nice first shot, but it didn't go far enough and people from both parties found loopholes to go around. All elections should be funded by the government with a certain amount going equally to all candidates. So it doesn't get costly and the government can keep some fiscal responsibility, you should need signatures from at least 100,000 registered voters to be on the ballot for President. For Congressional elections you should need signatures from 1 percent of registered voters in your district. This would limit the influence of special interests on prospective government officials. This could be assigned as a task to the Federal Voting Commission to monitor that candidates don't use private money. I know some people might say, but how can people support their candidates? By voting and passing out flyers, etc. I know that complications may arise so wait for 2,3,4,5 etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Several fundamental things wrong with this.</p>
<p>First. I earn my money, and as such, I should be able to spend it as I see fit. If that means I'm Bill Gates and I want to give my entire fortune to the Extremely Silly candidate this year, that's MY business, and none of government's. The fact that I have more money than the next guy means little because desoite my riches, I still have only one vote, just like everyone else.</p>
<p>Second. If you are so suspicious of the Bush Administration, then you should be the LAST person calling for government control of elections. If that existed now, and the GOP won the next election cycle, you would be screaming that the GOP had rigged the election. Chances are that if the Dems were in power and only the government could fund elections, the GOP would react the same way.</p>
<p>It's the fox minding the henhouse! How can any opposition party be expected to get a fair shake in an election if the primary blood of the campaign, MONEY, is controlled by the government, which is controlled by the INCUMBENT PARTY? All government-funded campaigns do is ensure the re-election of the dirtbags that are there now!</p>
<p>Third. You claim the government could maintain fiscal responsibility. Excuse me? Is this the same government that can't balance a budget to save its life, no matter WHO is in charge? "Fiscal responsibility" from GOVERNMENT? Please don't make me laugh. If they can't figure out where to trim a 2.7 TRILLION dollar budget, how the hell do you expect them to be fiscally responsible, especially when the outcome is THEIR POWER? In this regard, you are being WILDLY optimistic.</p>
<p>As for how many signatures are required to get someone on a ballot, that is entirely up to each state, as it should be. Choosing 100,000 as a common number (just to pick one) is meaningless because in some places you can get that just by showing up, while in others you don't have that many people in the whole county. Also, if you apply 100,000 across the whole country, I can get Mickey Mouse on the ballot.</p>
<p>Campaign Finance Reform should take the form of allowing any individual to give ANY amount to ANY candidate, so long as it is not done in CASH. Only checks, credit cards, bank drafts, etc., should be required to establish traceability. After that, it should be required that each candidate publicly disclose TO THE LAST PENNY where his campaign funds came from. As such, we the people know who is buying who and can take that into account when voting.</p>
<p>Anything else will result in the mess we have now, where billionaires like George Soros can buy elections but schlubs like you and me can't do anything because the law restricts us more than it does them.</p>
<p>No limits on fundraising. COMPLETE DISCLOSURE MANDATORY. Nothing else has or is going to work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2. The Senate should be dissolved and only a House of Representatives should exist in the legislative branch of the federal government because the Senate is an undemocratic institution. This country was founded on equal rights and representation. The population of America is estimated to be 298 million. The top four states (population wise) are California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Their respective populations are roughly 36.1 million, 22.9 million, 19.3 million, and 17.8 million. Their total population is roughly 33 percent of the Union. Why should 33 % of the population have only 8 % of the representation in the Senate, arguably one of the most important branches of the government?</p>
<p><snip></snip></p>
<ol>
<li>Dissolve the Electoral College and makes elections for President to be based on a popular vote. Nationwide elections only get about a 50 percent turnout. Not good. One reason why people may be turned off is because in an Electoral College if you live in California, New York, Texas, or South Carolina your vote really doesnt count because the first two will go blue for decades to come and the latter will go red as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. In a popular vote, no matter where you live, the vote would really count.
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>Both of these ideas show a fundamental lack of understanding as to how our government is set up and why.</p>
<p>First of all, I will remind you of the Great Compromise, which established our bicameral Congress. During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates were divided into two camps. </p>
<p>One thought as you do, that everything should be determined by a straight vote of the people or their representatives, selected based on population. The other beleived that individual states had to be able to protect themselves against other states with huge comparative populations, and as such each state should be represented equally.</p>
<p>The Great Compromise established the House of Representatives to represent the people, and the Senate to represent the states.</p>
<p>Now, that is EXTREMELY democratic, especially when you consider that we are NOT A DEMOCRACY. We are a REPUBLIC comprised of 50 individual states united under a central (Federal) government that is SUPPOSED to be there ONLY to resolve issues between the states and issues involving ALL the states.</p>
<p>So, to use your example. You state, "Why should 33 % of the population have only 8 % of the representation in the Senate, arguably one of the most important branches of the government?" Well, the answer is simple. It is because those 4 states only represent 8% of the states. Their populations are more than represented in the House.</p>
<p>Why should 4 states that have so many people be able to dictate to the other 46 that don't have as many? Why should California be able to force Georgia to do anything? Why should New York, California, Florida, Texas, and Illinois be able to monopolize the debate? Does this mean that the voters in Wisconsin, Nebraska, Hawaii, South Carolina, and so forth are actually LESS valuable?</p>
<p>The bicameral Congress (and the Electoral College, as well) we established SPECIFICALLY to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The people are represented based on population in the House. The states are represented equally in the Senate, and each state is represented in the Electoral College by a combination of both. It is brilliantly conceived.</p>
<p>Therefore, to implement your idea would not only throw away the entire Constitution (as already mentioned by Bill above), but it would FUNDAMENTALLY change what theis nation is. There would be no states. There would be no checks and balances. There would be no "cooling saucer" (I hate that term). It would be mob rule, and it wouldn't work.</p>
<p>The Founding Fathers were smarter than all of us combined. They created a system where each facet of what we are (a representative republic AND a union of individual sovereign states) was perfectly and equally represented, AND in such a manner that one cannot overpower the other. The were, simply put, absolutely brilliant.</p>