*sigh* My eyes bugged out when I saw the first post. I had a problem with nearly every one of them. The only one I have seen in this thread that I
agree with is the one about kicking lobbyists and corporations out of the legislature, period. You get caught trying to put money or something else
into a legislator's pocket that he isn't approved by a public vote (ie. by the entire congressional district he/she represent), there is one
penalty, death but rusty nails.
I'll cover a couple of the ones I didn't like now, if I tried to cover them all with my point of view I would be up way too long, and it is very
late here (for me anyway).
Abolishing the Electoral College---No No No! *rolls up newspaper* The Electoral College needs some work, yes, but getting rid of it makes it so that
the Presidential canidates will only campaign in those states that matter, which means the little states (ie. Wyoming, Alaska, you know the states
with populations under 750k?) will never be visited by any politician and the only states you will ever see one of the Federal Poli-chickens go near
will have a population of 5 million or more.
Altering the First Amendment, Period-- The first amendment has spent the last two hundred years at the forefront of the battles between people, yet
it's still there just as the Founding Fathers wrote it. Separation of Church and State is not a law
. Yes there is the phrase in the First
amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....", but you
know what that means? That means that unless the Churches violate the law of the land, the government should ignore them.
Something else on this one, sure the legislature at the Federal level opens up their sessions with a prayer by a religious figure (it's usually
switched around between various religions), but they do this because all of the legislatures say "We want this." So are you asking that the
legislators give up their First Amendment rights just because they are seen on CSPAN? I mean they are human beings (more or less) just like the rest
of us! Give them a break, if you really don't like the fact that religion is a way of thinking that impacts many of the events of mankind's
history, well tough cookies. I'm not saying that it is okay to throw it in the public's eye like Bush has once or twice, but personally I like the
fact that even if he is lying that he at least recognizes (on some level) that there is something bigger than the one person.
And lastly the one I find just down right disturbing:
Making the words "Top Secret" and "Restricted" disappear-- If I get what the original poster was saying right, then they would make anyone
capable of just walking onto a military base and walk right into a B-2 hanger, load it with a nuke, and take it to drop it whereever they want to.
I'm sorry, but those barriers are there for a reason. They are there for our protection and the protection of mankind. Yeah it might sound like I
am in the midst of believing in the rhetoric, but think about it, give everyone access to a nuclear stockpile of bombs, then everyone is going to want
one, and their use will become frequent and completely stupid. For example, have a weed that you just can't get rid of? Nuke it!
No, in no way should anyone allow that one.
One I haven't seen on here is anything concerning anything about being energy dependent or anything about Isolationism, which suprises me, seeing as
how many people are afraid of the world, why not put up a 50 foot electrified fence and mine the area around it and tell the world "Buzz off!"
Here's an amendment for you that I would love to see: "There will be no involvement by this nation in any alliance-style organizations or anything
even remotly looking like the UN. And as of now, they are evicted from US soil."
Ok, not worded quite like it would be in real life, but I think the idea gets across. Let's get rid of our involvement in the UN, kick them off of
our soil, then see how the world goes for about 20 years. Maybe then they will appriciate us more since we supply about 22% of their budget
(according to the wikipedia article on the United Nations (United Nations Article,
Let's fix our problems at home, then we will go overseas. I know that sounds like a tall order, but we can do it, if we will actually try.
[edit on 4/6/2006 by Sir Solomon]
[edit on 4/6/2006 by Sir Solomon]