logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Defending the Indefensible, A Game
quarkhead
post May 5 2003, 06:56 AM
Post #1


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Best of AD Award Winner: Best Casual Conversation, 2002-2003


OK, Here's how it works. Each poster must defend the argument presented in the preceding post. After defending the previous statement, make your own for the next poster. This will likely work best if you really disagree with the previous statement, so you are forced to play devil's advocate, though that is not an absolute requirement. Statements can be absurd (cows make excellent house pets) or just extreme (liberals are evil).

Example:

Poster A: Liberals are evil.

Poster B: (preferably a liberal) defends the statement, then at the end says, "cows make excellent house pets."

and so on.

It would be best if people avoided making statements which may force the defender to resort to racist or otherwise very inflammatory arguments (like, "The Nazis had it right," or White people should be forcibly sterilized.").

It may be fun (just as a suggestion) to take some of the topics hotly debated elsewhere on AD and force people to argue the opposite side.

Somewhat in that light, I will start:

George W. Bush is greatest president in U.S. history.

edited to add: If you are a fan of Mr. Bush, answer this instead:

GWB is the worst president in U.S. History.

This post has been edited by Jaime: Sep 20 2003, 08:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
16 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (45 - 64)
Benjamin A. Vazq...
post May 23 2003, 12:32 PM
Post #46


*
New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 689
Joined: April-23-03

From: St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



The fact remains that government is a voulentary association designed to improve the live of ALL it's citizens. If a government fails to improve the live of a certain segment of its populous, then that segment should no longer feel any loyalty to the government, because that government has failed to do its job. If any person is taxed more heavily than the services they recieve are worth, the governemnt has, for them, become tyranous, and the person in question is removed from the association by default. Thus they no longer have to pay taxes, but at the same time they no longer recieve services.

For these who would argue that the rich HAVE to be taxed more heavily in order to maintain a minimum standard of living for all, I would say: So what? It is not the resposibility of any given individual to provide for a nebulous "poor". Not only that, but right up to the great depression social security programs didn't even exist, and we cas see that in many ways that was the heyday of America (I'm talking the period before the depression, not the depression).

In the end, the fact remains that the capitalist system works, and to stack layer upon layer of beuracracy over the capitalist system will wind up being more harmful than useful. Taxing the rich will only add to this beuracracy.


Next: Large nations naturally experence many problems, both internally and externally, which smaller nations can more easily avoid. No nation should be allowed to grow to beyond 1,000,000 citizens without subdividing into two seperate nations.

This post has been edited by Benjamin A. Vazquez: May 23 2003, 12:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post May 23 2003, 01:17 PM
Post #47


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Next: Large nations naturally experience many problems, both internally and externally, which smaller nations can more easily avoid. No nation should be allowed to grow to beyond 1,000,000 citizens without subdividing into two separate nations.


In the history of civilization, the establishment of city-states was the first step towards nations. The city-states were sovereign entities that provided for their own defense and carried out commerce with other city-states in an easily regulated caste system, consisting of a strongly enforced hierarchy from peasant to divinely-inspired ruling class. It was a mistake to join city-states together into large nations.

We ought to split up our 6+ billion people into such sovereign city-states, resulting in a system of 6+ thousand entities. It may become confusing when a place like Chicago has to be split up into east, west, north, and south Chicago, but we'll get accustomed to this. Plus, we may have a big place like Wyoming being a single entity hard to wall and defend, but oh well, just think of the advantages!

Each entity would have the power to enforce tariffs on trade with the others, thus feeding the coffers of the ruling class. Some entities would be more effective than others in a Darwinian survival of the fittest scenario. So, south Chicago would continue to decline, but west Chicago would prosper. Nothing there would change, except the border guards wouldn't let any south Chicago peasants into west Chicago, period. None of this freedom of movement would threaten the suburbs with undesirables roaming the winding suburban streets!

Immigration and emigration would be so difficult that if some plague-like disease outbreak happened in north Chicago, the rest of the surrounding entities would never be effected.

If economic collapse happened in Wyoming, the Chicago area wouldn't feel a thing. Wool might get hard to come by, and coal too. Oh yeah, electricity goes along with that. But the Chicago area folks can just fire up their personal generators using fuel from central Houston. You know, if the trade deal was still workable.

Just who owned or controlled something like the Great Lakes would be a mess, but hey, we all know people just naturally get along. Cooperation on big things has always been a characteristic of our species, just look at, um, well, how about the UN? Okay, never mind that. Who needs the Great Lakes anyways?

Since nobody really goes anywhere anyway, we won't need all this travel infrastructure. No Interstates, no highways, just dirt roads for the commerce carts drawn by oxen and mules. You want to go to north New York? Read a book.

Next: Prospective parents should be required to prove their worthiness by passing a set of licensing exams designed and administered by the federal government.

Sidebar:

beladonna, I'm happy that Benjamin pushed us past the last one biggrin.gif

End sidebar

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: May 23 2003, 01:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benjamin A. Vazq...
post May 23 2003, 01:54 PM
Post #48


*
New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 689
Joined: April-23-03

From: St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



Prospective parents should be required to prove their worthiness by passing a set of licensing exams designed and administered by the federal government.

How many people do you know who make rotten parents? Massive numbers of children today grow up in families which are abusive, vulgar, or just plain incompitent. But the fact remains that children, wether they like to admit it or not, learn from their parents. So children with abusive parents are destined to become abusive parents themselves. Do we really need the continuing problems this implies? Children with alcholic parents are more likely to become alcoholics. Girls with mothers in an abusive relatioinship, are more likly to fall for an abusive partener themselves. Do we really need these problems? Would the world not be so much better off if we selected our parents with more care, allowing children to be raised by the same people who live responsible life styles and can therefore set a good example.

At the same time, lisencing our parents would help us in solving another increasingly pressing problem, that of over population. Under the current system, not only are the less responsible members of society launching their poisined children at the world, they are launching such a bulk of these children that the world's resources may become overwhelmed during the next few decades. Through lisencing we could effectivly keep the worlds population down to reasonable numbers, without having to undertake a fiasco similar to China's

Next question: I want to re-iterate my last one: I really didn't mean it sarcasticly, in fact it's something I quite firmly believe in.
Large nations naturally experience many problems, both internally and externally, which smaller nations can more easily avoid. No nation should be allowed to grow to beyond 1,000,000 citizens without subdividing into two separate nations.
The only exception I'd make is, as AuthorMusician pointed out, Major cities like Chicago. Metro areas would be the only circumstances underwhich I'd place the need for regional planning above the need for local control.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post May 23 2003, 02:08 PM
Post #49


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Hey, Benjamin, welcome to America's Debate!

You may want to start a serious thread on your idea. We're just messing around on this one, so apologies if I came off as sarcastic. Well, actually, no--that's part of the game on this thread. Think of it as our Daily Show.

You might want to start it in the General Politics forum.

Cheers!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Benjamin A. Vazq...
post May 26 2003, 12:45 PM
Post #50


*
New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 689
Joined: April-23-03

From: St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



Very well then, Author Musician, I probably was somewhat out of line, and at the same time I appear to have halted a very interesting thred. For both these things you have my heartiest appoligies.

Forgive me. sad.gif

In order to start things up again.....
Next statment: America's golden age ended abruptly with the stock market crash in 1929. Everything since then has been a long slow decline.

This post has been edited by Benjamin A. Vazquez: May 26 2003, 12:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post May 26 2003, 04:36 PM
Post #51


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



America's golden age ended abruptly with the stock market crash in 1929. Everything since then has been a long slow decline.

Once the envy of the world, America has been crippled since the stock market crash in 1929. In what was an unprecedented power grab, the federal government, under the dictates of Franklin Roosevelt began a systematic and hostile attack upon private business and entrepreneurism.

The result is what we now know as the Big Daddy welfare state where a host of socialist-inspired programs such as welfare, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment compensation and Medicare have served to sap the will and strength of citizens. From the cradle to the grave, we are now taught to believe that government will take care of our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The constant reassurance that Uncle Sam will handle everything from the amount of fluoride in water to how much filth is acceptable in hamburger has created a bureaucratic nirvana as the spirit of capitalism is buried in a tidal wave of rules, regulations, inspections and paperwork-in-triplicate.

Furthermore intrusive government regulations on investments, dividends, labor and environmental regulations have hobbled American industries. Pernicious tax policies have forced corporations to flee to countries which are more accommodating and sympathetic to the needs of business.

The only possible relief is the installation of political leaders that acknowledge that the role of government is a limited one, primarily confined to matters of national defense, taxation and other areas prescribed by the Constitution. The federal government should continue its withdrawal from its role as Supreme Regulator and take a more benevolent and cooperative position.

In this way, the free market will once again flourish and the resultant economic benefits will enrich the lives of all Americans---without government intrusion.

Next: Affirmative action has worsened race relations between whites and blacks and only increases resentment and inequality.

This post has been edited by nighttimer: May 26 2003, 04:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cyan
post May 30 2003, 06:45 AM
Post #52


Group Icon

********
Girl Anachronism

Sponsor
April 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,207
Member No.: 138
Joined: October-2-02

From: Denver, Colorado
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Affirmative action has worsened race relations between whites and blacks and only increases resentment and inequality.


As a color blind document, the U.S. constitution promises equal protection under the law, but it doesn't promise equal results. The only obligation that the government has is to strictly adhere to a policy of fairness and equality for all of its citizens on an individual basis regardless of their minority status.

The very concept of Affirmative Action is contrary to the idea of a color blind society, because it forces citizens to recognize individuals solely on the basis of race rather than on merit. This in turn fuels discrimination towards racial minorities, because it clearly promotes the idea that racial minorities are more deserving of jobs and education than those in the racial majority simply because of skin color. This is reverse discrimination.

Additionally, Affirmative action is damaging to the civil rights movement, because it implies that those with minority status can't succeed based on their own achievements. Clearly, this is not the goal of the civil rights movement, and a different, color-blind, course of action is necessary to improve the self-esteem of racial minorities as a whole.

Next topic: Consumerism is the most destructive force at work in the world.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike
post May 31 2003, 04:44 AM
Post #53


Group Icon

********
***I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN***

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,164
Member No.: 1
Joined: July-24-02

From: Savannah, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Consumerism is the most destructive force at work in the world.


You read it right folks, and I'm not joking here.

To fully understand why consumerism is fundamentally evil, we must first establish a definition:

QUOTE
Attachment to materialistic values or possessions: deplored the rampant consumerism of contemporary society.


Consumerism is evil on so many levels:

1. Environmental. Consumerism drives us to constantly purchase new goods. It may be the fastest computer, or the most gargantuan SUV.

This purchase-and-replace society is taking its toll on the environment. With each new possession we acquire, we return another to the earth, sometimes taking thousands of years to decompose.

But at the same time, each new product we purchase is manufactured. These manufacturing processes have been proven time and time again to rape the earth of her resources, and pollute her oceans and land with toxic chemicals. What can be more evil than that.

2. Humanitarian. With each new "made in China" product we buy, not only are we destroying the earth, but we are also contributing to exploitation of children throughout the world. Kids as young as 8 years old are forced to work in hostile conditions at minuscule wages. These poor kids work long, hard days, often with no breaks. Keep that in mind next time you buy a drink with a cocktail umbrella in it.

3. Worldwide Nuerosis. Adjustment Disorder. Delusional Disorder. Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The list goes on (presumably all the way to Z wink.gif )

The constant purchase-use-discard cycle has created a vast subconscious neurosis that has pervaded the world. Think about the last purchase you made. Did it feel good to buy that product? Did you feel satisfied? Well, you may have a consumption addiction ruling your life.

Think back to the last time you bought a new house or looked for a new apartment. You likely looked until you found the "perfect place". Well, as time went on, you realize that what you thought was perfect actually had quite a few small flaws. Your subconscious delusional disorder made you think it was perfect. It fueled your drive to consume.

Remember the last time your car died and you had to junk it? For most people it's pretty stressful. For some, it borders on traumatic. Well, after something like that, it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that something as stressful as that adds to your built-up post traumatic stress disorder.

Ok, so may be I went a bit far on that last one, but it was a good effort!

So, next up: Interspecies relations should not only be legal, they should be encouraged.

Have fun!

Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post May 31 2003, 05:57 AM
Post #54


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Tough but fun:
Interspecies relations should not only be legal, they should be encouraged.

Lets face it, man and woman have about run the gammit as far as trying to have good healthy relationships, and we as humans are so easily bored! Sick to death with the opposite sex, some have branched out, tried same sex relationships trying to save some smidgen of the idea that humans can all just 'get along'. Most humans cant get along with each other over long periods of time, or even short ones. We have failed the test.

I believe we should begin to experiment and encourage interspecies relationships. As humans we have a great advantage here which goes along with our natural tendancies. As diverse species we cannot really talk to each other, a great benefit for longer lasting relationships. We can constantly remain curious as to what the other means with the wag of a tail or a roar or a dive and spin, flip or climb. With modern genetics we could splice our genes to create a faster, smarter, more enviromentally sound human. And since we are the thinkers, when we are tired of our mate we can just euthanize them and get onto another funkier partner. We would almost always be dominant, our partners would do as they are told , or else! This ends all those nasty communication problems and misunderstandings. It just wouldnt be so hard as human relationships have become.

It would be a whirlwind of new fun and excitement. Everyday would be like being at the circus.
Think of happy frolicking partnerships with giraffes or elephants, some might prefer chickens or goats which are easier to keep. The sex would be totally kinky and in the animal world few care about fidelity!
It would teach us a deep love of our fellow creatures and to preserve their enviroment and food sources, which certainely benefits us in the long run. Humans might spred out and live in the jungle and on the ocean relieving the overcrowding in cities and drain on resources.

All those sheep herders had the right idea, after all, with sheep there are no unwanted pregnancies. We should expound upon this idea and take it to another level, and when the aliens come they will be astounded at our open mindedness and good nature and find a welcome home among us.

(ok, now Im either going to take a hot bath or call a psychiatrist. If THEY ever use this against me in court, Ill have real trouble explaining it)

Next: Elderly people are a big problem for society, they drive too slow, hold up service lines and havent kept up with technology. We should round elderly people up and put them away for their sake and our own, to protect those who can still think clearly and manage this fast paced life. Its not cruel, just survival of the fittest.

This post has been edited by Artemise: May 31 2003, 06:07 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post May 31 2003, 06:05 AM
Post #55


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Best of AD Award Winner: Most Convincing Post (tie), 2002-2003


Interspecies relations should not only be legal, they should be encouraged.

Most animal lovers (or even those who are just good friends) will be aware of the comfort that both the owner and the pet can take from physical contact. There is even medical evidence which suggests that such interaction can be literally therapeutic - stroking a cat, for example, demonstrably lowers human blood pressure.

Before looking at taking such relations a step further, one must recognize that there are two different worldviews interpreting humankind's relationship to nature: the Platonic and the Aristotelian. Platonists believe that man exists apart from - and above - nature. Aristotelians believe that man is a part of nature, that man is, himself, an animal. While Platonists have no problem with man's "dominion" over the natural world - such as slaughtering and eating animals or farming their internal organs for human use, they will most likely not be interested in... heavy petting.

A recent book, Dearest Pet: On Bestiality by Midas Dekkers, offers a substantial body of evidence to show that humans have often thought of "love for animals" in ways that go beyond a hug and a humping of the leg, or a proper concern for the welfare of members of other species. Bestiality has been depicted in art and mythology in almost all cultures at every point in human history. Even Christianity, with the Virgin Mary being "visited" by God in the form of a dove (not unlike Leda and Zeus disguised as a swan), could be said to have its roots in bestiality. According to Alfred Kinsey, 8% of all men and 3.5% of all women have admitted to engaging in interspecies relations at some point in their lives - and, among men in rural areas, this figure approaches 50%.

The contradictory taboo against interspecies relations in many religions (especially Judeo-Christianity) probably originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex - the same argument used against homosexuality and contraception. But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, in every way, from animals; the denial that humankind is, in fact, of nature; that we have an erotic life all too similar to that of "beasts of the field"; that we are, ourselves, animals.

It is the Platonic view, that we are apart from nature - "better" than nature - that what gives rise to genuine cruelty to animals. Most people who farm animals and who eat them and the products of their bodies, including their young, do so with no remorse whatsoever. From animal agriculture to zoos, the core of our relationship with the animals we use is our invasion of their sexual privacy and our physical manipulation of their sex, reproductive, and family lives. To me, this is worse than showing animals affection - and it is proof that we are, in fact, no better than animals.

Many who would condemn interspecies relations of a more intimate nature, have no qualms about exploiting battery hens or reaping the fruits of sadistic slaughterhouses. They have little concern for the fact that feeding themselves and their children animal products may lead to preventable health risks. And just as little concern for the fact that these very risks could one day lead to the necessity of replacing their own internal organs with those taken by force from creatures with whom they find it demeaning to have intimate relations.

The taboo that needs to be shattered is not the prohibition against bestiality, but against caring about nonhuman animals in a respectful, nonpatronizing, and unapologetic way. If we seek relations with animals not out of cruelty or out of dominance, but out of affectionate communion and genuine, loving interaction, this can only make us more "humane".



Edited to add:

Oops - double-posted! Who would have thought there'd be such a rush to defend this one? I'll concede the next topic to Artemise... biggrin.gif


This post has been edited by Jaime: Sep 20 2003, 08:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beladonna
post May 31 2003, 02:46 PM
Post #56


*******
Resident Beach Bum

Sponsor
July 3, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 868
Member No.: 545
Joined: February-26-03

From: Florida
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Next: Elderly people are a big problem for society, they drive too slow, hold up service lines and haven’t kept up with technology. We should round elderly people up and put them away for their sake and our own, to protect those who can still think clearly and manage this fast paced life. Its not cruel, just survival of the fittest.


It ought to be a law. All elderly people should be required to participate in a series of tests that evaluate their ability to survive independently in the 21st century. If they fail in any category, they should be required to live in a nursing home. The test should include:

Driving skills, Physical and Mental Health - are they able to consistently drive the speed limit, what’s their accident amount? Can they move about freely with little or no physical ailments, do they show signs of dementia, Alzheimer’s, etc?

Accidents seldom "just happen," and many can be prevented. Injuries from accidents happen more often and are more serious in later life. Several things make people in this age group more likely to have an accident. Poor eyesight and hearing can decrease awareness of hazards. Arthritis, neurologic disease, and impaired coordination and balance can make older adults unsteady. Some diseases, medicines, alcohol, and pre occupation with personal problems can cause drowsiness or distraction. Often mishaps are signs of mental depression or of poor physical fitness. When accidents happen to older adults, they are more likely to have a severe injury, and tend to heal more slowly.

Car accidents are the most common cause of accidental deaths among the 65 to 74 age groups not to mention the injuries caused to the helpless victims of elder drivers.

If the elder is unable to drive the speed limit, has more than one accident since retiring, or has any signs of physical or mental ailments, they should be required to check in to an elderly care facility.

The cost savings to insurance companies and law enforcement would be tremendous not to mention the handicapped parking spaces that would become available to the strapping jock that broke his ankle or the young junior executive who is in the late stages of pregnancy.

Computer skills - do they pay their bills on line, email friends and family, shop on-line, participate in chat or debate forums, etc?

Information technologies are transforming the ways in which we relate to our world and to each other. Telecommuting is no longer an experiment but a part of the workweek for many workers. Telemedicine connects rural clinics and medical specialty centers. Government services are rapidly expanding on the Internet. Grocery shopping on line is the wave of the future.

The elderly MUST be proficient in their use of the Internet in order to survive because we are rapidly advancing towards never having to leave the house for anything. No more driving down to Eckerds and conversing with the staff while younger moms stand in line, checking their watch, thinking about how she has to have dinner done in 30 minutes so she can get young Biff to his (no one wins, it’s just a game) soccer match. No more riding the disabled shopping cart through aisle after aisle of canned goods and toiletries while lines of younger shoppers form behind them just waiting for a gap to open up so they can pass.

If the elder isn’t computer savvy, they must check into an elder care facility.

Productivity - do they contribute to the community excluding providing tomatoes to a neighbor?

It is crucial that the elderly continue to be productive. They must volunteer at least 20 hours a week to hospitals, government agencies, schools, etc., as a way for these businesses to offset full time or part time employee salaries; another efficient way to save money.

If the elder refuses to give their time freely, they should be required to enter an elder care facility.

Negotiation/Investigative skills - are they able to differentiate between a good deal and a scam, do they view the handyman’s license and follow through with calls to the BBB? Are they proficient in saying, “No, take me off your call list”?

Consumers lose more than $40 billion a year to telemarketing fraud. People over 50 years of age are especially vulnerable and account for about 56 percent of all victims, according to a recent study by the American Association of Retired Persons. Scam artists often target older people, knowing they tend to be trusting and polite toward strangers and are likely to be home and have time to talk with callers.

Other areas of fraud where the elderly are more vulnerable are health, telemarketing, mail order, investments, credit card fraud, credit repair, insurance, home improvement, home maintenance and auto repair.

Again, the cost savings to young American tax payers would be incredible.

If the elder doesn’t have the ability to sniff out fraud, they should be required to enter an elder care facility where telemarketers can’t reach them and they’ll never have to worry about their leaky roof.

Elder care facilities could be designed like prisons. The elder’s SS and retirement funds would convert to the state and would provide funding for these “elder facilities.” However, the elder should be given a choice in the matter. They could opt for state assisted suicide if they chose not to enter the elder facility.

Our society would become stronger and more efficient as a result.

Next topic: Obese people should pay a tax based on their weight that helps feed the hungry and homeless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike
post Jun 1 2003, 06:31 AM
Post #57


Group Icon

********
***I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN***

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,164
Member No.: 1
Joined: July-24-02

From: Savannah, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Obese people should pay a tax based on their weight that helps feed the hungry and homeless.


Maybe this would be better as a serious topic in Constitutional Debate. wink.gif

The Constitution clearly provides for a tax, levied on obese people, earmarked to feed the hungry and homeless:

QUOTE
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


The above passage clearly establishes Congress' power to collect Taxes. It even specifies that taxes may be levied to provide for general welfare.

Some may say that the section establishes that taxes must be uniform, but it doesn't. It describes Congress' power to collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, but only states that uniformity is necessary for Duties, Imposts, and Excises. Taxes are clearly excluded.

QUOTE
US Constitution, Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to ...promote the general Welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


This passage, as well as the first, serves as proof of our founding fathers' intentions for a healthy, prosperous America.

A tax such as this would certainly promote the general welfare. Our legislators take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are bound to promote the general welfare.

We already have a working model for this. Strategic tobacco tax adjustments are in effect nationwide. As a result, people are quitting smoking. The revenue being generated is being used for every purpose imaginable. This establishes the precedent that we need.

By taxing obese people, we effectively hit their food addiction where it hurts most-- their wallets. This tax adjustment discourages overeating. Less eating means less fat, and less fat means less of a burden on our healthcare system.

Taken a step further, we could even offer a tax credit for healthy food, like granola, fresh fruits and vegetables, and soy products ( sour.gif ).

The revenue generated could provide much needed help to the growing number of poor Americans. Through strict government oversite and closely supervised administration, the federal government will be able to distribute to each according to their hunger.

Before you discredit the idea all together, ask yourself-- How would this tax not promote the general welfare?

And now for something completely different:

90% of the world has been abducted by aliens in the past. The other 10% are the aliens.

Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cyan
post Jun 1 2003, 09:51 AM
Post #58


Group Icon

********
Girl Anachronism

Sponsor
April 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,207
Member No.: 138
Joined: October-2-02

From: Denver, Colorado
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



90% of the world has been abducted by aliens in the past. The other 10% are the aliens.

It is unreasonable to think that life spontaneously appeared on this planet from non-living chemicals, but a new theory of cosmic ancestry holds the key. Billions of years ago the Earth and Mars were seeded by spores that contained simple life forms. Evidence of these life forms were found on Mars by NASA in 1996. There has also been a recent discovery in New Mexican salt crystals of spores that have been dormant for 250 million years.

Some scientists believe that these spores were delivered by comets, but it is unlikely that these spores would be able to survive the vaccum of space. The fact of the matter is that the Earth was seeded by aliens as part of a vast, living experiment, and like any good scientist, the aliens who planted life on Earth have been keeping tabs.

Don't believe me? How do you explain the phenomena of gigantic parallel lines that stretch over 37 miles and then come to an abrupt end in the ancient city of Nazca or the enormous drawings carved out of the Peruvian mountains? It is obvious enough to me that this is an airfield meant for a very large craft, and the drawings were meant as signals. If this isn't enough, ancient mythology is riddled with tales of beings coming down from the heavens. Can you think of a better way to monitor our progress without being detected than by appealing to our primitive minds by posing as gods?

The problem is that our species has become quite advanced within the past few hundred years, and the aliens can no longer rely on religion as a cover. They have had to infiltrate our societies instead by posing as doctors and lawyers and fast food workers. It is no longer prudent for the aliens to conduct their experiments right out in the open. Our gaurdians have had to resort instead to the technique of abduction to continue to monitor our progress...

Next topic: Humans will become extinct within 100 years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Jun 1 2003, 11:25 AM
Post #59


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE
Next topic: Humans will become extinct within 100 years.


I went down to my local New Age store the other day to pick up the week's supply of crystals, aromas, charms, and mojo hands. There on the wall, I spotted a map of the world. It sure looked different! Why, where was Denver? Where was Washington DC? Seattle? How come the Mississippi/Missouri river valleys looked like one big ocean?

The sweet psychic store siren informed me that this is what the world will look like "sooner than we think!"

Huh? Oh, I see. This is the future earth! Mostly water due to global warming melting the ice caps, which reflected a lot of heat back out--through ozone holes, I suppose--and so that will make ocean evaporation more intense. More dense cloud cover will reflect more heat out, and so lots more precipitation will fall, and then the earthquakes happen!

Plate tectonics readjust land masses faster than a chiropractor can say, "Here we go!" Twist, crack, ugh, oomph, crack, crackle, SNAP! "There, better?"

People crowd together on high ground. The eighteen billion population gets real cozy, and then the plagues break out! Who the heck invited the rats? Oh, no, not rats. Prairie dogs. Cute critters.

Billions of people die. The few thousand left are saved when the starship arrives to take them back to the native planet, which has been converted into a paradise by use of terraforming nanotech robots.

"Ich dorf kumas recto napita dufus!" declares the starship captain.

Translated: "Well, this little experiment sure didn't work out."

And so, human beings leave the earth never to return. The planet eventually gets itself back into balance, sharks learn to crawl up on land, and big predators with itsy bitsy little brains take over again. The cockroach survives! Yeah man, a happy ending.

After the store siren finished with the story, I asked her how the heck this stuff was ever concocted. She told me that this psychic guy dreamt it all up and wrote a book about it. I paid for my New Age goodies and thought, while firing up my CO2-belching Jeep and incanting with my mojo hand, what a great schtick! Dang, wish I would have dreamt it up.

But just in case, we've laid out beach sand and put out a dock on the mountain. Maybe we should clear some trees? You know, for the starship landing area? Eh, I bet they have transport beams.

Away we go: We should forgive crooked corporate officers because they were just trying to make investors happy. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Jun 1 2003, 04:51 PM
Post #60


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mike @ Jun 1 2003, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE
Obese people should pay a tax based on their weight that helps feed the hungry and homeless.


Maybe this would be better as a serious topic in Constitutional Debate. wink.gif

Actually, that may not be a bad idea... w00t.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike
post Jun 3 2003, 03:46 AM
Post #61


Group Icon

********
***I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN***

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,164
Member No.: 1
Joined: July-24-02

From: Savannah, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Well, of course we should forgive crooked corporate officers. After all, they were just trying to make investors happy.

If there is one indicator of a company's worth it is the price of their stock. If your stock isn't going up, the investors get mad.

Mad investors equals no investors, and no investors means no company.

The CEO always has the investors, the hard working American public, on his or her mind while making major decisions.

Good exectives function on instinct. All decisions are intended to preserve the company and reward the investors.

No executive of good morals could possibly allow thousands of people to lose money. Given the option between making people lose money today or lose money tomorrow, I think we would all choose to let people keep their money as long as possible.

There are, of course, other factors that demand we forgive crooked executives.

As proven earlier in this thread, there is an evil force at work. That's right, consumerism. These CEOs have no choice-- they must continue the cycle. They must produce new and improved products out of space-age polymers to satisfy the people. If they weren't crooked, we'd demand they were.

The next indefensible:

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking is NOT bad for your health. huh.gif

Mike
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Victoria Silverw...
post Jun 3 2003, 07:07 AM
Post #62


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



Smoking is NOT bad for your health.

In this day of extreme political correctness, it's become unacceptable to discriminate against any minority, with one exception: the user of tobacco products. You'd be outraged if a business had a sign that said "No [members of ethnic group]" -- why so blase about all the "No Smoking" signs?

Oh, because you want to protect public health? Think again. What is smoking, after all? Just the ingesting of a perfectly natural product. How can taking a leaf, and inhaling its smoke, be so different from eating a vegetable? Native Americans weren't devastated by lung cancer and other so-called "smoking-related" diseases. I'm sure that a good scientific study would reveal that these diseases have much more to do with industrial pollution and the modern diet.

Someday the truth will come out. As Woody Allen predicted in his film Sleeper:

"It's tobacco! One of the healthiest things for your body!"

NEXT: Bullfighting is a fine activity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Jun 3 2003, 08:03 AM
Post #63


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Bullfighting is a fine activity.

MEMO:

From:
Quark McGurkin, President
People for the Ethical Torturing of Animals

To:
Activists, lobbyists, Spaniards

Let's face it. Everyone loves torturing animals. Who among us did not enjoy inflicting slow death upon members of the animal kingdom as a child? Why, I remember as a boy, when my father would pluck the legs off a horse one by one for our family's entertainment. It still makes me chuckle to picture that once mighty equine dragging itself around the barnyard by its one remaining limb!

But times have changed. The sentiment of Americans has been corrupted forever by the idea of "political correctness." Today we are faced with actual criminal charges for what ought to be a natural instinct - to inflict pain and death on a lesser creature.

But there is hope! Due to a loophole in the law, the government has had to recognize that people do have the right to exempt themselves from certain laws and rules, if it is dictated by their religion or culture. As it turns out, we can legally set up Bullfights by getting someone with Spanish ancestry to cosign for the permit! And on that permit, we can list up to 10 matadors.

And with our printable permit, already cosigned by our man Juan Gonzalez, you can be killing bulls in no time! ($49.95 + shipping and handling) Even in your own backyard!

What better way to kick off a neighborhood barbecue than by killing the bull yourself! Especially when you get to stick it with barbs and then stab it through the brain with a sword!

Thank you, and good killin'!!

Next:
The world would be a better place today if the New World Colonies had failed in their war for independence against Britain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GoAmerica
post Jun 4 2003, 11:58 PM
Post #64



Newbie

Group: BANNED
Posts: 0
Member No.: 381
Joined: January-12-03

From: Illinois, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jun 3 2003, 03:03 AM)
Next: The world would be a better place today if the New World Colonies had failed in their war for independence against Britain.

The World would be a much better place if the British colonies had failed in their war for Independence

The countries that used to be British Colonies would nbot be engaged in civil wars over the lands. Under the British Empire, they would have be reaping in peace & prosperity instead of death and destruction.

Under one rule, they would have a flourishing societies with a specific government without the bloodshed of wanting the current gov't to reform & change.

These countries would be equal in economic power with fanatstic technology and good medical systems instead of the mass diseases

The World would be a better place with the British Empire intact

Go for it: A Fetus has Rights
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Artemise
post Jun 5 2003, 03:58 AM
Post #65


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Member No.: 668
Joined: April-15-03

From: Alaska
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Gotta go in on Bullfights, from the Spaniards point of view:

All civilizations have had their blood sports.
In America at present time, there are movies where people, often teenage girls and boys are massacred to a laughing public. America is a violent nation, guns and gangs are prevalent, there is no discernment of real blood from televised blood. Its still the same human need for blood sport. However, movies are much more detrimental to the psychology of people, since its not real, some think they can ACT OUT what they see on TV, without real consequences.

In Spain, the people get their need for blood sport in a real arena. It is done with an animal that is born and bred for it and has no other use. In the Bullfight, the male proves not only his courage, but his finesse, a magic dance against a powerful and deadly enemy.

People go home with a sense of exhilaration, a sense of man above beast, of superiority. Their need for blood sport is satiated, and therefore not needed to be experienced in their lives. Spain is a much more peaceful country than the US, there is much less violent crime. In Spain, animals can serve this purpose, to aknowledge that man is in fact greater, stronger and more intelligent; but more-so, public killing and blood is something human beings NEED in order not to act it out in other ways.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 29th, 2022 - 11:24 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.