While We Wait: Part 5

[flyingchicken]

A theoretical scenario that could not ever be executed in the real world using real world logic. Plato's Republic was almost totally fictional (?): that's very different from talking about "China" and the "USA," unless you're talking about a totally fictional universe where "China" and the "USA" don't mean the "China" and the "USA" that we all know and love.

Edit: xpost!

 

[Neverwonagame3]

All it would take for that scenario to be pulled off would be George W Bush wanting it. The reason it would never happen is that none of us are in a posistion to make that happen.

 

[a_propagandist]

All it would take for that scenario to be pulled off would be George W Bush wanting it. The reason it would never happen is that none of us are in a posistion to make that happen.

I don't think you quite grasp how limited presidential power is and should be.

 

[Luckymoose]

All it would take for that scenario to be pulled off would be George W Bush wanting it. The reason it would never happen is that none of us are in a posistion to make that happen.

Why would anyone do that?

 

[alex994]

All it would take for that scenario to be pulled off would be George W Bush wanting it. The reason it would never happen is that none of us are in a posistion to make that happen.

Oh please, it would take more than George W. Bush wanting to give the PRC Iraq to give the PRC Iraq. A little thing called Congress, and the electorate.

The reason it would never happen is not because none of us are in a position to make it happen but because there is no reason for anyone to support that theoretical situation to occur. Even IF I had the power to do that, I wouldn't.

EDIT: Triple post for the win

 

[Masada]

No, a_propagandist, I don't think you grasp the fact that if he tried to do that he would be hung from a lamppost pronto...

 

[flyingchicken]

The reason it would never happen is that none of us are in a posistion to make that happen.

That is one of the absolute worst cop-outs I have ever, ever seen.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Bush is going out of office anyway, so the electorate matter less. I might have been wrong given the Congress point, however.

As for how limited presidential powers SHOULD be, they are way over their Constitutional powers.

 

[silver 2039]

All it would take for that scenario to be pulled off would be George W Bush wanting it.

Because apparently George W. Bush is Jesus and anything he wants happens.

I might have been wrong given the Congress point, however.

You've been wrong about everything you've spewed in the past 20 pages. And more. So that's not surprising. Seriously STFU.

 

[LightFang]

You may have been wrong? How about, you are definitely wrong, here?

But, if we are going to talk about how limited the President's powers should be...well, I will say that he has almost nothing to do with the economy. I don't like the precedent the Gulf of Tonkin resolution set though.

"Dude, Mr. President, what are your troops doing in my country? This is war!"

"Ah, well, with all due respect, no, sir, it isn't."

"Why not?"

"It's a police action."

And yes, I am aware of the War Powers Resolution. I am also aware that it has been violated quite a bit.

 

[BananaLee]

NWAG, perhaps you should stop muttering the strangest bizarre things on this thread and concentrate on say... playing China in Superpowers? That way, you're in a position to make all your dreams come true.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Because apparently George W. Bush is Jesus and anything he wants happens.



You've been wrong about everything you've spewed in the past 20 pages. And more. So that's not surprising. Seriously STFU.

That was unfair- my point that if vegitarianism reduces IQ the government should supress it stands.

You may have been wrong? How about, you are definitely wrong, here?

But, if we are going to talk about how limited the President's powers should be...well, I will say that he has almost nothing to do with the economy. I don't like the precedent the Gulf of Tonkin resolution set though.

"Dude, Mr. President, what are your troops doing in my country? This is war!"

"Ah, well, with all due respect, no, sir, it isn't."

"Why not?"

"It's a police action."

And yes, I am aware of the War Powers Resolution. I am also aware that it has been violated quite a bit.

I think we're agreed that the President should actually keep the Constitution.

 

[alex994]

That was unfair- my point that if vegitarianism reduces IQ the government should supress it stands.

If Vegetarians choose to be well, vegetarians and their IQ is then reduced, who cares? The reduction of IQ points in vegetarians will not directly affect the rest of the population such as say with druggies. They're the ones losing out on the IQ points and as such, their own opportunities. Their loss is our gain.

 

[Dachs]

That was unfair- my point that if vegitarianism reduces IQ the government should supress it stands.

[...]

I think we're agreed that the President should actually keep the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does the government have the right to do that? I'm pretty sure the commerce clause doesn't cover it.

 

[jeps]

NWAG, intelligence drops with age, correct? If not, hypothesize that it does . should the government ban aging?

 

[LightFang]

Where in the Constitution does the government have the right to do that? I'm pretty sure the commerce clause doesn't cover it.

Quoted for the Friggin' Truth.

A democracy is rule by the people, no matter how stupid and ignorant they are.

I know, they don't always make the right choice, and life would be better under an enlightened despot, but the problem is when you have a despot who's not all that smart. He'd have to be bloody brilliant. And so the wonderful world of real life crashes into idealism.

And furthermore, why does the government have a right to interfere if you chose to damage your own intelligence? I don't see it forbidding people to read those crappy communist pamphlets people pass out around UC Berkeley or denying Michael Moore films from being shown.

 

[alex994]

I don't see it forbidding people to read those crappy communist pamphlets people pass out around UC Berkeley or denying Michael Moore films from being shown.

Most of them seem ah... remarkably well dressed to be members of the proletariat. At least the students I saw passing them out when I went there last summer

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Where in the Constitution does the government have the right to do that? I'm pretty sure the commerce clause doesn't cover it.

The states can do it, though. So they should.

NWAG, intelligence drops with age, correct? If not, hypothesize that it does . should the government ban aging?

If it did, then the government would have the problem they can't get rid of aging. If, hypothetically, intelligence dropped with aging and they could get rid of it, there would be a good case for banning aging (assuming significant numbers actually chose to).

Quoted for the Friggin' Truth.

A democracy is rule by the people, no matter how stupid and ignorant they are.

I know, they don't always make the right choice, and life would be better under an enlightened despot, but the problem is when you have a despot who's not all that smart. He'd have to be bloody brilliant. And so the wonderful world of real life crashes into idealism.

And furthermore, why does the government have a right to interfere if you chose to damage your own intelligence? I don't see it forbidding people to read those crappy communist pamphlets people pass out around UC Berkeley or denying Michael Moore films from being shown.

What the government can do legally and what it should do morally are different things. Anyway, reading communist pamphlets is at the very worst a sign of low intelligence- and it could just be curiousity.

Just because democracy is a good system doesn't mean people shouldn't try to come up with a better one- there's little harm in trying, after all. Then, when a better alternative is thought up it can be advocated.

 

[alex994]

Ah.. a person's expectation of a right to privacy? I'm pretty sure that will be enough to have the SC strike down any laws banning vegetarianism

 

[silver 2039]

You know there's the small problem of regulating the ban on vegetarianism. Whats the govt going to do? Put a camera in every home, buisness, and restaurant to make sure people are eating some meat? How are you going to stop someone who's not eating meat? How would you even find out? And what would be the penalty for this? So yeah your idea is retarted and I feel stupider for even considering it seriously. If anything the government should ban you for lowering our collective IQ by many points.

Are you going to STFU about this ******** . .. .. .. . now?