The weapon production I can understand (although I'd keep a bunch to prevent future war), but why close the plants? Nuclear power is one of the best electricity producing methods we have.
Until it blows up. Or until the waste isn't treated properly.
Don't say "that'll never happen", because that would be ignorance. Nuclear energy is risky regardless.
That is like saying a nuclear bomb might slip while being transported and explode.
It doesn't happen.
See? Ignorance.
It's too risky. The topic states I'm in control of America, and thus I should look for the well being of the population and not the profits that energy companies/the government itself would produce.
This is looking out for the well being of the population. If we used nuclear energy, and eventually developed fusion, we'd have a cheap and very efficient source of electricity that would last for thousands of years.
If we developed fusion, that's the flaw in your argument.
Plus, consider this: I reduce the investment in weapons and in controlling other countries, so more money is left for energy. There would be no need for nuclear energy.
Not for a war. I believe everyone should have nuclear weapons because it assures that there WON'T be a war. This theory is called MAD. It is what prevented WW3 with the USSR.
But nukes are the reason there is a large possibilty of a WW3 happening.
And, the "other countries fear our nukes, so there's no war" is ********. It would be better to always settle things in a diplomatic manner. Fear only leads to anger, which leads to war.
Diplomacy comes first. Nuclear threatening comes second and simply adds another layer as to why we should use diplomacy and not actual war.
Nuclear weapons are NOT the reason WW3 can happen. NO ONE would go to war if both sides have nuclear weapons. That is precisely the reason no one has gone to war with each other since the 50's. If Iraq had a nuke, do you think the USA would have invaded it? If North Vietnam had a nuke, do you think the USA would have intervened?
No. Nukes prevent war. Simple as that.
That's such an ignorant manner to think.
For starters, you can't predict how people will act. It's entirely possible - even if rare - for a country to attack one with nukes, and bam nuclear war.
Second, if you don't think the presence of nukes doesn't make WW3 possible, you obviously didn't see any news recently. What about the scientists working on nuclear energy being assassinated, tensions with Iran, etc?
Third, again fear is never a viable tactic.
Fourth, saying "Simple as that" isn't an argument, and doesn't convince anyone.
A mighty machine built within the wake
Of a long dead dream, little demon awake
The citizens sleep, never quite knowing when
The device will reawaken, hungry again.
Well. For starters, I would get rid of government provided health care, get rid of the absolutely absurd tax system and replace it with a flat tax, get the government out of the lives of people to let them make their own decisions, stop all government "banning" of materials (e.g. salt, drugs, etc.), cut military spending, stop trying to build democracies in countries overseas, and drop support for the advertising of global warming.
In short, I would go back to what the Constitution was. What the Constitution says what the Federal Government can do is the limit of what it can do. Let the States decide the rest.
Oh, and teach the Constitution in Elementary School.
The constitution said nothing about global warming, healthcare, tax rates, or foreign aid.
Therefore it is not the responsibility of the federal government to dictate those things. I apologize for my neglect of the absence of the stated topics in the Constitution. However, a flat tax would be a personal decision, as I believe this topic is about.
I see. And why, exactly, should we follow the constitution word for word?
It is my belief that we should follow the Constitution because it is what our country was founded on. If you don't want to stick to what has been the single most underlying set of principles in the United States, you can always move to a different country. Such is the beauty of individual freedom.
Besides, I say so, and this topic is about being in charge.
And what if the beliefs the country was founded on are wrong or inefficient?
Then, you can move. Besides, the beliefs that America was founded on were the same beliefs that brought the US to the superpower it is today.
I wouldn't call liberty flawed.
What if 99% of the country agrees it is flawed? Why should they move instead of the 1% being forced to accept that the foundation is flawed? Liberty is subjective.
You got me. I surrender. I'll move away with the 1%, off to some other place.
The 99%, meanwhile, can appoint a new 1% to rule every aspect of their lives. I'll pass, unless the new party decides I am an enemy of the state for trying to move and kill me. That evil 1%.
EDIT: The evil 1% refers to the 1% before the revolution, the 1% that refused to give up their freedom.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
Hmm. I see your point. I still believe that we shouldn't consider a foundation flawless. Disbanding public healthcare or cancelling awareness campaigns because the founding text says the government doesn't have to do that is rather... counter-productive.
Counter productive or sensible? I think enough awareness comes from the propagators of any said topic, whether it be through education or advertisements. All I have to say about public healthcare is leave the business to the businesses.
Would you really consider healthcare a business, though? I'd consider it a human right. I'd say make the public healthcare sector compete with the private healthcare sector, thus ensuring both coverage for everyone, and the highest quality possible.
Healthcare is as much as a human right as owning a house or going to college is. I think, though, that making business compete with federal products is insane. The fed can charge as much or as little as they like, they'll always have a nice pile of debt to sit on.
EDIT: I seem to have made another mistake, and for that I beg of you to excuse me. I didn't specify that I do not think that owning a house or going to college are not human rights.
Until it blows up. Or until the waste isn't treated properly.
Don't say "that'll never happen", because that would be ignorance. Nuclear energy is risky regardless.
See? Ignorance.
It's too risky. The topic states I'm in control of America, and thus I should look for the well being of the population and not the profits that energy companies/the government itself would produce.
If we developed fusion, that's the flaw in your argument.
Plus, consider this: I reduce the investment in weapons and in controlling other countries, so more money is left for energy. There would be no need for nuclear energy.
But nukes are the reason there is a large possibilty of a WW3 happening.
And, the "other countries fear our nukes, so there's no war" is ********. It would be better to always settle things in a diplomatic manner. Fear only leads to anger, which leads to war.
I say, the better source of energy, Is stupid people, but if that fails, nuclear energy would be a good choice.
That's such an ignorant manner to think.
For starters, you can't predict how people will act. It's entirely possible - even if rare - for a country to attack one with nukes, and bam nuclear war.
Second, if you don't think the presence of nukes doesn't make WW3 possible, you obviously didn't see any news recently. What about the scientists working on nuclear energy being assassinated, tensions with Iran, etc?
Third, again fear is never a viable tactic.
Fourth, saying "Simple as that" isn't an argument, and doesn't convince anyone.
A mighty machine built within the wake
Of a long dead dream, little demon awake
The citizens sleep, never quite knowing when
The device will reawaken, hungry again.
You didn't even read my whole post.
-Higher taxes for upper class
-Legalize marijuana and other medically beneficial drugs
-Completely ban alcohol (deal with it)
-Discrimination is a criminal offense.
-Ally with China and take over the world
That was attempted once.....it didn't end well....
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
In short, I would go back to what the Constitution was. What the Constitution says what the Federal Government can do is the limit of what it can do. Let the States decide the rest.
Oh, and teach the Constitution in Elementary School.
"-Completely ban alcohol (deal with it)"
You've never heard of alcohol prohibition have you?
"-Discrimination is a criminal offense."
That's against free speech. Also do racist, sexist, gayist jokes count as discrimination?
Therefore it is not the responsibility of the federal government to dictate those things. I apologize for my neglect of the absence of the stated topics in the Constitution. However, a flat tax would be a personal decision, as I believe this topic is about.
It is my belief that we should follow the Constitution because it is what our country was founded on. If you don't want to stick to what has been the single most underlying set of principles in the United States, you can always move to a different country. Such is the beauty of individual freedom.
Besides, I say so, and this topic is about being in charge.
Then, you can move. Besides, the beliefs that America was founded on were the same beliefs that brought the US to the superpower it is today.
I wouldn't call liberty flawed.
I guess that means we would have to throw out (or at least significantly rewrite the constitution).
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/SteevyT/saved/21PI
You got me. I surrender. I'll move away with the 1%, off to some other place.
The 99%, meanwhile, can appoint a new 1% to rule every aspect of their lives. I'll pass, unless the new party decides I am an enemy of the state for trying to move and kill me. That evil 1%.
EDIT: The evil 1% refers to the 1% before the revolution, the 1% that refused to give up their freedom.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
I agree. A runaway minority, however, can do as much damage as a runaway majority.
Counter productive or sensible? I think enough awareness comes from the propagators of any said topic, whether it be through education or advertisements. All I have to say about public healthcare is leave the business to the businesses.
Healthcare is as much as a human right as owning a house or going to college is. I think, though, that making business compete with federal products is insane. The fed can charge as much or as little as they like, they'll always have a nice pile of debt to sit on.
EDIT: I seem to have made another mistake, and for that I beg of you to excuse me. I didn't specify that I do not think that owning a house or going to college are not human rights.