If You Were President

[cyberpaladin85]

Let's say that you're the president of the United States of America. What would your goals for the nation be, and what would be your position on the issues?

[Binary the Great]

I should think that, were I elected tomorrow (not like that would ever happen), my primary goal would be making the GWOT winnable. Keeping in mind that it took us ten (10) years to get Japan up to a servicible state, and that was without people there wanting to blow themselves up to hurt us.

On the home front, I would want to bring things back in line with the ideals of the constitution and our forefathers: the rights of the minority. Frist & Co. have made me sick tearing apart the ideals of the constitution for their bible-thumping constituants. I can only fear what more damage will be done 'ere the 2k8 election...

[Steedo]

Yes, the Global War on Terror is still the biggest issue, and it's currently still winnable if we continue to stay the course in Iraq and also learn from what mistakes we made. Iraq now has it's first freely elected government and it is on course to rebuild it's infrastructure and re-establish it's own rule of law. Sectarian violence is at an all time high because the insurgence can smell our weakness when we talk of plans to abandon and pull out before peace is secured.

Japan did have kamakazi pilots, but I agree, that's not quite the same as suicidal terrorists.

Probably the most important thing my administration would do to return us to the original vision of the Founding Fathers is to abolish the Department of Education, reducing the tax collected for Federal education programs(allowing the states to raise their education taxes to cover the gap) and allocating few remaining dollars for education divided proportionally by total representation(Senators+representatives), this is the balance between total population and states rights that we have always respected in our government.

I'd press for the elimination of all marriage and divorce laws, be replaced with a single law that obligates both parents, mothers and fathers to be financially responsible for their children until they are 16, or the obligation is specifically removed by legally adoption by another responsible parent, or the child demonstrates financial independence.

I'd continue and expand government acknowledgment of private sector alternatives, such as private retirement plans, education and private charities and credit donations to each against social security, government education(if I was unable to abolish it at the federal level), and welfare, starting at 15 to 20 cents on the dollar, and if successful raising it up to as much as 50 cents on the dollar or in some cases potentially more. I'd encourage states to do the same with their education systems, and I would provide tax breaks for companies who invest in low tuition private schools that will train their future workers. I'd extend Pell grants and other programs that helps pay for low income children's tuitions to include trade and high schools (if it doesn't already) and adjust the percentage covered to be tied to their academic performance.

Have I talked myself out of the job yet?

[cyberpaladin85]

First of all, the so called "War to enrich cronies pockets..." er, the "War on Terror," is a war on an abstract/idea/concept. It can't be won or lost in the sense that a true war can. Living life involves risk, dammit; spending billions of dollars a year so that a few people won't be killed in a terrorist attack that might not happen is one hell of a waste of funds. That's my view, and if you disagree, too bad, it's not changing.

I would see about legalizing marijuana, and, if it came up, would not veto the legalization of prostitution.

Let's see, $5.00 for a bag of legal marajuana that does not cause physical addiction/decay, or $500.00 for illegal misc. narcotic that causes said problems; I think the drug problem will solve itself relatively quickly with choices like that.

Prostitution will always exist; by legalizing and making sure there are controls and standards for it, at least we'll keep money out of the hands of downright scummy people.

More to come later.

[Steedo]

3,000 or more is a few people? And here I thought life was valuable and worth defending. How about the hundreds of millions of dollars in damage caused to the buildings? How about the Billions of dollars of economic impact when whole businesses, people customers, products and records all burned and crushed to rubble and ash? We aren't talking risk here, it is an actual ideological war against an enemy who is not content to let us exist in peace. I suppose you would also have denounced the war to free slaves the so called "American Civil War" as another war against an idea, the idea that people can own other people.

Prostitution will always exist; by legalizing and making sure there are controls and standards for it, at least we'll keep money out of the hands of downright scummy people.

Not at all. It will just shift which set of downright scummy people get the money, pimps or politicians. Prostitution may always exist the same way slavery may always exist. It exists where it is tolerated and legal. Where it is illegal and not tolerated, it is stamped out whenever it's discovered. When it is illegal, but tolerated, it's stopped when it gets too public or too out of control. When it's legally sanctioned and regulated, that is when pollitcal corruption becomes accepted.

I mean really. Republican Senator Mark Foley merely send some suggestive email and IMs to a male page and he is forced to resign and much political hay is made, which was a major reason why many people voted for Democrats over republicans in the last election. About a decade ago, Senator Gary Studds, a Democrat had an affair with a male page, he was found guilty and censured, but continued to serve for years after. Democrat Barney Franks had a gay prostitute living with him and last I checked he is still serving. So I guess the moral is that prostitution is already legal, bot only if you are an elected Democrat.

[cyberpaladin85]

You could not possible be more mistaken about the American Civil War part, Steedo.

Basically, If it were up to me, the Confederates would probably have suffered far, Far, FAR worse than they did historically. First, execute the main secessionists. Then execute the major slave owners and traders (executing anyone who owned a slave would be preferred) and give their stuff to their former slaves. Keep the Confederate soldiers that the Union captured in prison camps until their deaths. Desecrate every single last Confederate flag in existence. The Confederates behavior was irreconcilable, and for that, violence and humiliation is in order.

Though I may be libertarian in nature, do not mistake that for weakness or tolerance, for there are things that I will not tolerate, and slavery is one of them!

[Steedo]

But you will tolerate murder of civilians by religious militants who are in no way associated with any direct attack on the religious militant's way of life other than living their own lives? You are willing to tolerate a dictator who used chemical weapons, not only against enemies, but against people in his own country? You are willing to tolerate a regime that pays the families of people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up clearly military installations like pizza parlors and dance clubs?

You seem to be saying you tolerate unprovoked attacks, slamming two plane loads of people into two skyscraper full of well over 100,000 office workers and another planeload of people into the Pentagon. This would be an act of war if it was planned and executed by soldiers operating under a chain of command and under a country's banner. But they weren't loyal soldiers dutifully serving their country, they are terrorists. They attack unarmed civilians, men women and cildren who were doing nothing but living their own lives. They aren't soldiers, they pay no heed to the rules of war or the Geneva Conventions, and yet some feel that they deserve to be treated to the same protections a uniformed soldier in entitled to. I ask you why.

You see my point. We have not defeated the idea of slavery, it still happens in several parts of the world, but due to people like Abraham Lincoln, we have made dang sure it isn't tolerated in America or any of our allies. We are doing the same with Terrorism. We are making it clear we will not tolerate people who support, promote or harbour terrorism or terrorists in the same way we went to war to remove the state governments that allowed slavery.

If the true purpose that drives the War on Terror is "to enrich cronies pockets", don't you think that there are far easier schemes to do it? I'm not sure where you estimate President Bush's intelligence, but it would be hard to imagine that he'd come up with an elaborate plan to stage the September 11th attacks to justify going to war in order to create a few lucrative contracts in high hazard zones instead of something much more simplistic and no worse for his PR, such as up and declaring that he'll veto any and all bills until he gets however millions of dollars paid to his contributors.

[cyberpaladin85]

I have two choices right now: Respond with vile demogougic bile, or lock this topic before it devolves and violates pro-board rules/regulations.

Thank goodness I'm in a (temporarily) lucid state of thinking. Locked it will be.