Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 2. Don't give nasa more money. PRIVATISE THE SPACE INDUSTRY. Do it NOW. Allow private companies the right to explore and exploit space. It's the only way to get us off this rock. Man has never been on the moon, since I've been alive anyway. Over 30 years ago was the last time we were there!. That's pathetic! Evolution is must work in reverse up in space, because our whole program has Devolved. Capitalism, bless it's dirty corruptable soul, is the only way to jumpstart our dying dreams of space. I don't think any private company can afford to pay for space travel, and seeing they get nothing back (ie. it's not like they can sell rockets to families), it's hardly an industry at all anyway. 2 a. Once this is established, build a wagon train to get rid of nuclear and other polluted wastes: Place the pollutants on an elevator (made of quantum superstrong carbon atoms), send them up to an orbiting cargo ship, and then slingshot the ship on a one way path into our big blazing ball of a god, the sun. You realise that's impossible? 4. Legalize any 'drug' that is a naturally growing piece of this planet. May I ask why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speck of dust Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 There are in fact plans to build a carbon tethered elevator to space, they have the quantum technology to do it. Privatising space is alot more than selling rockets to families, lol. The oppurtunites and benefits are humungous, too much to post in this thread here. (maybe we should start another on it?) The point here being, open the doors. Start the ball rolling. Let competition reduce the huge costs. And let companies with more romantic intentions explore space. Nasa is getting stale on it's romance. As per my legalizing 'natural' drugs, i.e. pot, mushrooms, etc... A) something that grows on it's own should not be illegal. B) like alchohol and tobacco, the industry would be huge and the taxes on it would be even bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 8. The last two years of high school must have mandatory classes that prepare and educate students how important it is to VOTE FOR THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS EVERY NOVEMBER. They need to learn what each branch of the officials do, who is running, what are the platforms, and figure out for themselves who to vote for. Teach how important it is to have MORE THAN TWO parties. There should be mock up elections in schools, to get familiar with the process. So that once they turn 18 they will know how important it is to vote and will express their voice, thus reducing the huge gap (50%) of eligible voters that DO NOT VOTE. Please, it's what our country is founded on. The only way for new generations to have a voice louder than the old ones is to vote. Believe it or not, my high school did do this, except it was only mandatory in senior year. It worked pretty well (especially consdiering that the mayor of the city was the teacher. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted April 28, 2003 Author Share Posted April 28, 2003 I've changed my mind on the space issue, as I think privatizing would be the better way to go. There are actually pretty big treasures in space, and they'll only grow in size when the size of this rock gets too small. As for the drugs issue, you have to remember that a lot of lethal poisons grow naturally. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. And selling coke for huge profits, while at the same time getting thousands of people addicted to it is bad, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greedo626 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 1) Raise minimum wage to $80 an hour (just to see what happens). 2) Feed convicts to lions for fun. 3) Increase military funding and take over the world. 4) Build an orbiting space station to send all the dumbasses to, then open the windows to make room for the next batch. 5) Name myself Emperor of Earth and wire nukes all over the world to blow up when I die so I can go out with a bang:thumbsup: I don't think I'll ever be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle I don't think any private company can afford to pay for space travel, and seeing they get nothing back (ie. it's not like they can sell rockets to families), it's hardly an industry at all anyway. What about all the satelites put into space? Is NASA the only one who puts them there? If so, I doubt they do it for free. So that would be how you would pay for it, you are providing a service. And that's just one way to pay for it, off the top of my head. ]Originally posted by greedo626 Raise minimum wage to $80 an hour (just to see what happens). It would most likely screw everyone very hard. Raising the minimum wage is detrimental to everyone except those who make minimum wage. And all they gain is the right to say they make 25 cents more an hour then they did last year. When minimum wage rises, so too do the prices of everything. Businesses need to compensate for the higher wages paid out. So, the person who wasn't making minimum wage still makes the same amount of money, but now everything cost more. Raising the minimum wage sounds good, but it really is a cosmetic fix to fool people. C'jais, a lot of the lethal poisons that grow naturally aren't illegal, though. That's the difference. But I'm not supporting that they be legalized. Also, there is no federal law pertaining to prostitution, that is regulated by the State. As for taxes, do you think that the cost of living and the price of things and the average salary in your country are on par with the States? If they are, then I reckon we could handle paying some more taxes. If not, then it would be hard to raise taxes here, as no company would lower prices, not for decades at least untill they realize that the economy can't bear their prices. Then companies go bankrupt, etc. It would be a big mess. We're sort of in an irreversible position on that right now, I think the best bet would just be lower government spending. I bet the our government spends quite a bit more money on frivolous things then yours does, if all things are equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais No one's talking about communism-like astronomical levels I think his tax reference wasn't directed at communism......more towards the reason we split from England in the first place, that we were getting our asses taxed to death and we didn't even get a say in it.....well, that's not the ONLY reason we split...but it was one of the major ones..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 why dont we stop nit-picking peoples posts and stay on topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CagedCrado Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 You all realize that none of that can be done right? the president doesnt have enough power to do all of that. He is just the most publicized for some reason. The president is basically the head of his party, nothing more. Things like raising taxes Gun control laws social programs I suppose you could do executive orders, but then youd just be impeached. BTW you do need a license for a concealed weapon. If you banned guns, expect to be assassinated by gun lovers, if you ban guns the bad guys still have them, and hunters and sportsmen dont. If you took away anti abortion laws, dont expect to be alive much longer you murderer. If you raised taxes to 100%, trust me mao tsetung, youd not be around long. I might assasinate you myself. Get rid of the military i might not kill you or wish death upon you but i wont like you and you will get no votes anyway. Plain and simply, you give the government any power, and it gets corrupted. 25% taxes is enough, and although getting rid of guns etc sounds good, really its just stupid. Socialism is just stupid, this has been proven by the absolutely horrible european economy, and the reason the american and japanese economies are the best is because the people are actually free. Socialism takes away the freedom over your finances, which is almost all of your power and therefore, your freedom over your life. You are all socialists. Socialism is bad. Socialists are like communists, the government gets more power than they need. The governments only power should be the military, and by this im talking about the national government. If the national government ran your city, the streets would go nowhere, thered be constant construction, and no law, with 70% taxes. I believe that states can do far more than the national government, as they know what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 You all realize that none of that can be done right? the president doesnt have enough power to do all of that. He is just the most publicized for some reason. The president is basically the head of his party, nothing more. Going to war against, someone, on the other hand, seems far from radical or drastic enough to require congress approval. *Reads rest of Croco's post* Croco, the whole thing is, we know the President can't do that. And we know the consequences. We're doing this for fun, okay;)? If you banned guns, expect to be assassinated by gun lovers, if you ban guns the bad guys still have them, and hunters and sportsmen dont. Not so. You can restrict guns to the level they are restricted in other countries in which 11,000 people don't get shot every year. You can own weapons in every country, basically. We don't say we should ban guns, but that you should be reasonable and have to go trough a LOT of **** to get them. You know, so that the crime rates would go down. That's not against the 2nd Amendment, which actually is specific in stating that the "militia" should be well-regulated. If you took away anti abortion laws, dont expect to be alive much longer you murderer. Hypocrite. "I hate killing so I'll kill you:D"? Some abortions are justified.. albeit not at the age of 3 months. More like the first weeks. Let's say the fetus is found to lack a brain, say. Do you still want the girl to have to go trough the extreme pain of birth just for, frankly, a dead body? Get rid of the military i might not kill you or wish death upon you but i wont like you and you will get no votes anyway. Just to ask you about something: Can you please give some reasoning for your views. This is a Serious Discussion Forum. Socialism is just stupid, this has been proven by the absolutely horrible european economy, and the reason the american and japanese economies are the best is because the people are actually free. Are you related to TIE Guy, by any chance:)? Socialism takes away the freedom over your finances, which is almost all of your power and therefore, your freedom over your life . Okay: Scandinavia, a social-liberalist region, is among the most wealthy regions in the world. Socialism doesn't necessarily take away your freedom: You can still have privatized hospitals, for example, even though you've got socialized hospitals. People do not necessarily "slack off" just because they get 'free' hospitals and other 'free' stuff. They don't plan on getting hurt anyway, and they still work to get money for housing, food, clothes, and so on. Socialism doesn't take away the freedom of your finances as long as you maintain free enterprise. I know, a socialist country with free enterprise is not a true socialist country, but hey, the USA is not a true capitalist country (there's socialized stuff, regulations, and welfare:)). If you mean having to pay for hospitals and stuff, well, maybe, but remember that the people voted for this way of live by electing leftist parties in the first place. We want to pool money on hospitals for each others, plain and simple as that. In the United States, 40 million people out of 280+ million (14%), are have no health insurance. In liberal countries, unless something's wrong with the system or you haven't got enough hospitals, the number is 0 (0%). Difference of 40 million+ people. Privatized health: Privatization of medicine sale brings about bad sides as well as good sides in addition to people not covered by insurance, for example overprescription of medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CagedCrado Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Scandanavia is not one of the richest regions in the world when you take into consideration those people give 75% of their money to the government. The reason socialism is stupid is it hurts people whod otherwise have money. I go to the doctore 3 times a year at most. That costs about $500 with no insurance. Lets say my income is $40,000 a year, slightly higher than national average. Lets say the government takes 75% of that away for poor people to go to the doctor. I only make $10,000. If you ask me, id rather choose how i spend my money rather than let the government spend it for me. The reason id not vote for a person who got rid of the military is that they are morons. If i was the leader of russia, id be happy to own europe right now. You are lucky the US would defend you even though personally, i see you as socialist morons. What is the point in building a country if only to lose it in war? A military is more important than socialist programs by far. BTW i know i am a hypocrite but i feel that if you kill people you deserve to die, but not if you killed someone who kills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 If I was the leader of russia, id be happy to own europe right now. The fact that you'd want to be an imperialist doesn't mean we need a big army. Fact is, not too many countries in the world have too much of a threat table. The USA basically is only threatened by terroists and maybe China. And yes, you need an army. All countries do. However, I ask you why this army has to be a houdred times bigger than every other army. The US Army, outguns the 10 next countries on the list, if they all were to fight you together. You don't NEED such a big army, just keeping one that's slightly bigger than #2 will do the trick. You are lucky the US would defend you Watch out, C'Jais's gonna get at you now:p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted May 1, 2003 Author Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by CagedCrado BTW you do need a license for a concealed weapon. I know. I was talking about banning concealed weapons and make a license a requirement for owning one at all. If you banned guns, expect to be assassinated by gun lovers, if you ban guns the bad guys still have them, and hunters and sportsmen dont. "Expect to be assassinated by gun lovers"? Eh? I don't think the American public is that unforgiving. Of course you'd still be able to get guns if you really wanted to. That's not the point. The point is that the people who might commit gun crimes would have a severely harder time doing it, if they didn't have a gun at their disposal right away. Like the school shootings - how many less would you think would happen if those kids couldn't just go and grab a gun from under their dad's pillow? If you took away anti abortion laws, dont expect to be alive much longer you murderer. Easy on the death threats there. Ok, so I'm a murderer by doing this. Let's pretend. How about all the women that use p-pills? Those pills kill, murders and snuffs the life of the fetus, after it's been born and given life. You want to ban those as well? If you raised taxes to 100%, trust me mao tsetung, youd not be around long. I might assasinate you myself. ` Communism works at 100% percent taxes, you got that right. But raising taxes 100% would only mean a tax rate at a modest 50%, which is what social-liberalism is working on. Get rid of the military i might not kill you or wish death upon you but i wont like you and you will get no votes anyway. I didn't want to get rid of the military altogether. That'd be mad, I agree. No, merely cut it in half. Socialism is just stupid, this has been proven by the absolutely horrible european economy Is it? Or are you referring more specifically to the east-european economy? That's capitalism for you. No, Scandinavia's economy is not sh*te. Far from it. and the reason the american and japanese economies are the best is because the people are actually free. Aha. Socialism takes away the freedom over your finances, which is almost all of your power and therefore, your freedom over your life. No it doesn't. 50% my friend, 50%. You are all socialists. Hey hey now. Not all of us in here are Scandi's. Socialism is bad. That's a matter of opinion. What criteria are you basing this on? Socialists are like communists Moreso than capitalism, yes. But not "like" communism. If the national government ran your city, the streets would go nowhere, thered be constant construction, and no law, with 70% taxes. Huh? Why? Doesn't happen in my city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted May 1, 2003 Author Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by CagedCrado Scandanavia is not one of the richest regions in the world when you take into consideration those people give 75% of their money to the government. 50%. You really ought to read up on socialism, and watch how it works in Scandinavia. You are lucky the US would defend you even though personally, i see you as socialist morons. Since when did you ever defend us? Please don't reboot the whole WW2 debate. What is the point in building a country if only to lose it in war? A military is more important than socialist programs by far. Yup. I agree wholeheartedly. But I didn't say "get rid of the military". I said "cut it down to half". Don't worry, you'll still have a military might to be reckoned with, but you'll appear less gung-ho on the global scene. BTW i know i am a hypocrite but i feel that if you kill people you deserve to die, but not if you killed someone who kills. How would I kill anyone by abolishing anti-abortion laws? How do you kill anyone by supporting the wars your country wages and by eating fast food? I can't see the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 But raising taxes 100% would only mean a tax rate at a modest 50%, which is what social-liberalism is working on. Oooooh. I thought you meant to 100%. I oughta read peoples' posts better. Should we get back on topic? Maybe you could make everyone post 5 more things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Good idea. I'll start. 1. Make school uniforms mandatory. There has been extensive research done that shows that school uniforms are beneficial in many ways, particularly in urban communities. Naturally, provide vouchers to familys who cannot afford them. Thats all I can think of right now. I'll add more later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Should we get back on topic? Maybe you could make everyone post 5 more things? Back on topic? I thought we were just tossin' ideas around? Sure, make 20 twenty more if you feel like it, bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by ShockV1.89 1. Make school uniforms mandatory. There has been extensive research done that shows that school uniforms are beneficial in many ways, particularly in urban communities. Which ways, exactly? I think the brits here could give us some insight. As for me, I can't see school uniforms helping much. Sure, it makes fashion statements less pronounced, but they're still there, and I never really sensed it as too much of a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I know this is allot to late, but anyway I like the Space subjects and need to put my 5 cents in on this one. Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle I don't think any private company can afford to pay for space travel, and seeing they get nothing back (ie. it's not like they can sell rockets to families), it's hardly an industry at all anyway. There is a substantial profit to be made by any company that can afford it. There are already privet companies that launch satellites. There is currently a $10 million prize for anyone who can affordably launch a manned civilian craft into space. If one does it others will follow. Than more interest brings more research, more research brings better cheaper equipment. There are other reasons to go to space other than launching satellites or rich people in orbit. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,447494,00.html http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,444888,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Which ways, exactly? I think the brits here could give us some insight. Improves self-esteem and self image by allowing the kids to be recognized for their personalities more than their clothes. This also helps close the rich-to-poor divide that often springs up in many public schools. Greatly decreases chances of gang violence in urban schools, by prohibiting the wearing of "gang colors." Increased security, as it is much easier to spot an intruder/tresspasser on school grounds when every student is wearing a uniform. The person who doesnt belong sort of stands out. Create a greater sense of community and belonging within the school. Keeps the kids concentrating on their studys, and less on what they are going to wear the next day (I have a 15 yr old sister, and she does spend more time on her clothes and looks than studying. And she's not even that bad). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 1. Make it so that the President has to get Congress approval for troops movement, no matter how short a time they're in another country. Improves self-esteem and self image by allowing the kids to be recognized for their personalities more than their clothes. This also helps close the rich-to-poor divide that often springs up in many public schools. Whoa, economic gaps. To be frank, the problem is with your society when it comes to the US and UK. The mistake you're doing is informing the children that they're different in the first place. What you should have done is to let a 10-year old think that a big house is a big house, not a "upper-middle-class house belonging to people who are richer than me and thus a different type of people who probably look down at me and that I thus should stay away from". If you don't teach kids about different economic levels before, say, middle of middle school, they won't segregate as much between "classes" (which is a stupid term, IMO, because it serves only to draw lines between people) either. If you want a smaller "class" gap, well, just don't tell your kids too much about classes and differences. It's simply disturbing how US middle schoolers yell and holler at people digging ditches, for example. /Rant. Greatly decreases chances of gang violence in urban schools, by prohibiting the wearing of "gang colors." Two words: Dress code. You don't need a uniform. Increased security, as it is much easier to spot an intruder/tresspasser on school grounds when every student is wearing a uniform. The person who doesnt belong sort of stands out. Make people wear visible IDs. Create a greater sense of community and belonging within the school. You don't need a uniform for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle To be frank, the problem is with your society when it comes to the US and UK. The mistake you're doing is informing the children that they're different in the first place. What you should have done is to let a 10-year old think that a big house is a big house, not a "upper-middle-class house belonging to people who are richer than me and thus a different type of people who probably look down at me and that I thus should stay away from". If you don't teach kids about different economic levels before, say, middle of middle school, they won't segregate as much between "classes" (which is a stupid term, IMO, because it serves only to draw lines between people) either. If you want a smaller "class" gap, well, just don't tell your kids too much about classes and differences. It's simply disturbing how US middle schoolers yell and holler at people digging ditches, for example. Even if you tell your ten year old that a big house is a big house, he'll eventually realize that having a big house means that they have more money than he does. And the fact that they have more money means that they will have more stuff, and kids with more stuff are cooler than other kids. It's humanity there, we don't have to teach social classes for them to exist. Two words: Dress code. You don't need a uniform. How does a dress code prevent gang colors? If you limit the colors of the kids clothes, why not just assign a uniform? It'd be easier. Make people wear visible IDs. What happens if a kid loses his? Or forgets his at home? Kids are PROBABLY not going to lose their clothes or forget to wear them. And even with visible IDs, you're still less out-of-place without one than you would be wearing street clothes when everyone has uniforms. You don't need a uniform for that. True...but it would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Even if you tell your ten year old that a big house is a big house, he'll eventually realize that having a big house means that they have more money than he does. And the fact that they have more money means that they will have more stuff, and kids with more stuff are cooler than other kids. It's humanity there, we don't have to teach social classes for them to exist. True. However, in the choice between a child being thaught about it at age 7, and a child learning it on his own at age 11-13, I know what I'll go for. The later you learn about differences, the more integrated you'll be by the time you learn about them. And yes, kids with more stuff are more cool. However, kids in Scandinavia still hang out with kids with less stuff. BUT they hang out at the house with the most/coolest stuff. There's a big difference between not playing at the house of a kid with less stuff, and not playing with that person at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 A little note on Scandinavia before I log out: Scandinavia (including Iceland) is the happiest place on Earth. Source: By the Numbers: Quality of Life, Scientific American, oct-02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 I think ST really loves his homeland:p. j/k Uniforms.. How does a dress code prevent gang colors? If you limit the colors of the kids clothes, why not just assign a uniform? It'd be easier. Good point. However, I think uniforms are a bit overkill. Sure, in schools with gang feuds you should have them but not in every school. My school is pretty peaceful, and I haven't heard of a single gang clash taking place there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.