|
|
Post by Ducky being lazy on Jun 30, 2004 17:12:06 GMT -5
Pssh! You're gonna run this country into bankrupciy!  Bah, we're already millions, billions, or trillions in debt. And if I become in charge...I will insist on wearing a crown at all times. And have a group of people follow me around tending to my every whim. And I'll demand ice cream that is fat, calorie, and carb free but still tastes the same. *goes off to dream* |
|
|
|
Post by ncwidt5895 on Jun 30, 2004 17:51:41 GMT -5
If I was in charge I would... 2. Make worse punishments for animal cruelty. I once heard about a man to grabbed a small dog by the two back legs, swung him around, and hurled him fifty feet into the air. The dog died a painful death. The man? $250 fine. $250 you could very well earn again for taking the life of an animal? And there was also a guy who grilled-GRILLED-a kitten and got six month's community service. Despicable. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. For pete's sake, a man murdered a dog, and vandalized the owner's property. Fined $200 for the dog's death. Fined more than $200 or arrested - I forget- for the vandalism. That is NOT right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2004 18:34:47 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. For pete's sake, a man murdered a dog, and vandalized the owner's property. Fined $200 for the dog's death. Fined more than $200 or arrested - I forget- for the vandalism. That is NOT right. I know. It's...terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2004 21:59:30 GMT -5
I don't understand why people want the alcohol limit lowered. Personally I think alcohol should be illegalized, as it kills the liver and the brain. Plus, college kids and high school kids tend to party. Throw some old alky in there and you have 20 drunk teens driving home and getting killed. The "freedom" of driving and the "freedom" of alcohol just don't mix. Wait until they learn some responsibility. That old saying, "They'll get their hands on it anyways, so why does it matter?" just doesn't work. That would only show that the government caves easily.
As for gay marriage...well...I'm not religious, but I do think it's biologically incorrect for two beings of the same gender to have such a relationship...still though, if they want to be biologically incorrect, then let them. It doesn't hurt anyone, does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ducky being lazy on Jun 30, 2004 22:11:17 GMT -5
I don't understand why people want the alcohol limit lowered. Personally I think alcohol should be illegalized, as it kills the liver and the brain. Plus, college kids and high school kids tend to party. Throw some old alky in there and you have 20 drunk teens driving home and getting killed. The "freedom" of driving and the "freedom" of alcohol just don't mix. Wait until they learn some responsibility. That old saying, "They'll get their hands on it anyways, so why does it matter?" just doesn't work. That would only show that the government caves easily. They tried banning alcohol back in the 1930's and it didn't work. People smuggled it in from Canada and other countries, made their own out of anything from apples to potato peelings, etc. If we ban it, it'll just make people want it more. People can do some weird things when they're desperate for something too. (Little known fact: I can be quite the History geek.) |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 30, 2004 22:14:35 GMT -5
I don't understand why people want the alcohol limit lowered. Personally I think alcohol should be illegalized, as it kills the liver and the brain. Plus, college kids and high school kids tend to party. Throw some old alky in there and you have 20 drunk teens driving home and getting killed. The "freedom" of driving and the "freedom" of alcohol just don't mix. Wait until they learn some responsibility. That old saying, "They'll get their hands on it anyways, so why does it matter?" just doesn't work. That would only show that the government caves easily. Well, I think the general concept is, at 18, you can go off and die for your country, but you can't have a beer with your buddies before you go. Not saying I disagree or agree, just simply saying, I think that some people believe that if you have the ability to, say, go out and by a house, you should be able to kick back and drink some wine in it. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmooseofdoom on Jun 30, 2004 22:39:42 GMT -5
They tried banning alcohol back in the 1930's and it didn't work. People smuggled it in from Canada and other countries, made their own out of anything from apples to potato peelings, etc. If we ban it, it'll just make people want it more. People can do some weird things when they're desperate for something too. (Little known fact: I can be quite the History geek.) 20's actually. The amendment was repealed in... 1928? |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Jun 30, 2004 23:03:13 GMT -5
You have my vote as well  I LIKE your ideas! You got my vote. *nods* *bows* Thank you! Thank you! And how about them gas prices? Seriously, though, I would also take a bi-partisan stance on everything. If we all see things in a biased view, then we arent really doing what's best for our countries. That is why I rarely take sides in certain issues. Another thing I would do is get rid of annoying things. Things like the electoral college, the patriot act, homeland security, the Teletubbies, Jessica Simpson, and Geraldo Rivera. |
|
|
|
Post by KittyKadaveral on Jun 30, 2004 23:59:58 GMT -5
Well, I think the general concept is, at 18, you can go off and die for your country, but you can't have a beer with your buddies before you go. Not saying I disagree or agree, just simply saying, I think that some people believe that if you have the ability to, say, go out and by a house, you should be able to kick back and drink some wine in it. I'll say the same thing about kids being allowed to drive. I don't get why a 16 year old is mature enough to get behind the wheel of something that can kill someone but yet they aren't responsable enough to vote on who runs the country or anything else of importance. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Jul 1, 2004 6:10:08 GMT -5
Well, I think the general concept is, at 18, you can go off and die for your country, but you can't have a beer with your buddies before you go. Not saying I disagree or agree, just simply saying, I think that some people believe that if you have the ability to, say, go out and by a house, you should be able to kick back and drink some wine in it. The legal age in England is 18 for a drink, but there's a load of old, odd laws that say you can drink with parents' permission when you're twelve etc. By thirteen, everyone has hold of alcohol anyway though, but there's a culture of binging. But in France, they have alcohol as a part of life and there's no binge culture at all, as they're so used to having a small glass of nice wine instead. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Jul 1, 2004 12:26:08 GMT -5
Well, I think the general concept is, at 18, you can go off and die for your country, but you can't have a beer with your buddies before you go. Not saying I disagree or agree, just simply saying, I think that some people believe that if you have the ability to, say, go out and by a house, you should be able to kick back and drink some wine in it. The thing with the legal age being twenty-one, though, is that twenty-one is when your brain is completely finished developing in the places that alcohol harms. If you start drinking heavily at eighteen you do a lot of damage to those bits. Still, it doesn't really make sense to stagger the different responsibilities--maybe they should all be awarded at eighteen or all at twenty-one. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2004 12:29:50 GMT -5
They tried banning alcohol back in the 1930's and it didn't work. People smuggled it in from Canada and other countries, made their own out of anything from apples to potato peelings, etc. If we ban it, it'll just make people want it more. People can do some weird things when they're desperate for something too. (Little known fact: I can be quite the History geek.) Trust me, I knew all of that. That portion of time interests me (my grandfather grew up across from a speak easy). I just think that it's stupid that we give into people's pleas when they don't act responsibly. People didn't even give the government time to think over what they did, they just went ahead and made alcohol. Civil disobedience should be the one of the last steps in fighting for what you believe in. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Jul 1, 2004 12:49:03 GMT -5
Well, I think the general concept is, at 18, you can go off and die for your country, but you can't have a beer with your buddies before you go. Not saying I disagree or agree, just simply saying, I think that some people believe that if you have the ability to, say, go out and by a house, you should be able to kick back and drink some wine in it. Yeah, that's the mentality. I find it very odd that I am considered completely independent and yet cannot drink. For instance, my mom was married before she could drink - what's up with that?! Couldn't have champagne at her own wedding reception. In my opinion, it should be all or nothing. We're either adults or we're not. Make up your mind. And since I'm not a minor anymore, I can't even drink with parental supervision like I used to be able to. Wha....? 3. The process for getting disability payments should be very much reworked. Disabled people who've had discrimination or an uncertain situation at work may run out of money long before the checks start to come. It took three years before we got disability for my father. In that time, my parents were forced to liquidize all their assets, including their retirement fund, and sell our house as we could no longer afford to pay the morgage. My dad used to make big money - we were easily upper middle class. Now, with my mom working full time as a nurse and what we get from disability, we're hovering around lower middle class. For a while, we were below poverty level and eligable for food stamps. That was before we finally got disability money. For those of you wondering how my father got disabled - he was sent on a business trip to Vietnam and the company couldn't wait a week for him to get the proper vaccines. And yeah, that's fun to explain to people. When I say Vietnam everyone always replies, "Oh, was it in the war?" And when I tell them that it was on a business trip the conversation just ends after that. I don't quite get it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Jul 1, 2004 18:22:54 GMT -5
I just want to point out, these are all good ideas, but they're harder to apply than people think. Like lowering taxes. You can't just lower taxes because people want you to, services, namely schools, hospitals, libraries and other free services all come out of taxes. If they dont get their money from taxes, you have to pay them directly.
Nextly, you can't punish people harder just because. We studied "Measure for Measure" recently in English, and that taught us this. It's by Shakespeare by the way.
See, it's about this man, Claudio, caught commiting a crime, namely, sex before marriage. Technically, the law says that he is to be executed. That doesn't really seem right when you have a closer look at the situation. See, he is DEEPLY in love with his girlfriend. Real love too, not just a prostitution thing. But their marriage was delayed because she didn't come up with the money yet (the dowry). Meanwhile, there are these other guys that ARE into prostitution, but haven't been caught, and are getting off scot free. At the same time, the man sentencing him, Angelo, says that he hopes it to be a lesson to everyone else, to show that they will be enforcing laws now. But that's way harsh! What happened to "forgiveness"? That's this woman Isabella's thing. She's about to become a nun, so she's a very pure and good person. She'd want this man punished too right? Of course someone about to become a nun couldn't forgive this crime. But she's Claudio's SISTER. Now what? Her religion tells her to forgive and forget (the Christian way), but her sense of right and wrong says let him die. She goes to convince Angelo to let him go, he gives her one condition. She's got to sleep with him. Quite a dilemma, huh? Twisted play it is, and I wont spoil it for you.
So. How's that for right and wrong gone wrong? Some of it is understandable, like the animal cruelty ones, but you can't forget to forgive, or at least to look at EACH situation closely. They're different. That's one of TNT's most major complaints about how people are frozen. It's so... generic. Everyone gets the same treatment for such a wide variety of crimes. That and sometimes you didn't know, sometimes it was a sibling, sometimes the games have bugs. And don't try to tell me that they're all liars. My brother was in exactly that situation.
In an ideal world, everyone would be punished the same for murder, for every crime. Justice would be served, and everyone would be caught. But we can't do that. You know we can't. That's why we have judicial systems that do their best. Even then, we're only human and humans make mistakes.
Just remember this and you'll do fine in life.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - Unknown
Aka, government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Jul 5, 2004 1:08:56 GMT -5
In sixth grade when I was being home schooled, my Mom had me create a country - draft a constitution and everything. This actually isn't too uncommon a process in teaching - lots of public schools do it. But I've seen some of the things they come up with, and they are completely illogical. I'm pretty sure the teachers don't really havet them think it through. My Mom, on the other hand, went to law school. She managed to find problems with every idea I came up with. She picked at me until I thought I would die of brain stress, and I must have shouted "I DON'T KNOW" a hundred times in the hours and days I spent working on it. In the end, what I came up with still had countless loopholes and would NEVER work in the real world. I learned a lot of things from this experience, but more than anything, I learned that I am NOT legally minded.
So, I'll just comment on other people's ideas.
Eri, I like your platform.
Jessica, you are SO right about there being all sorts of situations, and no set of laws that can be fair to everyone. Some of my favorite episodes of Law and Order deal with that. One that comes to mind is a SVU I saw recently. The detectives were racing against the clock and the limitations statute to find a rapist. They ended up throwing one of the rape victims in lockdown because she refused to reveal information (she had recently run into the rapist and found him a changed man - she even talked him out of turning himself in), raiding a Quaker worship center to get files, and all manner of other legal but not necessarily moral things. They eventually found the rapist. It turns out that he been convicted of burgulary and raped in prison, and later got in an accident that left him partially paralyzed and unable to feel anything beneathe his ribcage. Talk about the punishment fitting the crime - that's better than what the legal system could do. And now he's going to serve time in prison anyway. Yeah, very off-topic. I just felt like typing that.
Buddy, I would SO vote for you. Honestly, I would. You are intelligent, legally-minded, and a good problem solver. And you have a good heart. I personally think you would make a wonderful president - certainly better than the two sad excuses currently in the running.
|
|
