A healthy lunch and gym class does little to counter an unhealthy lifestyle overall. The conservatives are silly, but Obama is wasting money. To be effective, people living unhealthy lifestyles need to receive a low health care ceiling and pay even higher premiums.

And that is not even the beginning of it!

1. While a nation should operate under the rule of law, a constitution is a piece of paper and we need a new one. For example, the Presidential model is what reduced our country to an effective plutocracy. We would be better off with a Parliamentary system. The latter favors coalitions and cooperation, while the former favors the broken two-party system we have today.

2. For practical reasons, abortion must be a woman's civil right. I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade, through I agree with the outcome.

3. The second amendment is also obsolete. It was intended to arm citizens against a federal army, but today such a prospect is lolz. It would be catastrophic if you allowed civilians to own tanks and machine guns etc. However, I agree that it should be a right to own guns that are effective for hunting and self-defense.

4. State's rights sound horrific. I enjoy the fact the bill of rights evolved to apply to my state and local governments as well as the federal government. I want a unitary system. It's much more efficient.

5. Agreed to some extent. The federal government too often reinterprets the constitution in ways that are disturbing.

6. I'm confused here. You are saying religion is oppressed? Excuse me? There is too much religion intertwined with politics. But I agree about the press. There is too much censorship, and a free press is essential to transparency and consequently good government.

7. Short of establishing a Parliamentary system, I agree with restoring senators to state appointment.

8. ???. Are you saying that representatives should never be pardoned for committing misdemeanors?

9. Fully agreed.

10. Disagree. A unitary system is more efficient, due to economies of scale.

11. I agree with you with regard to the bail out. Other times, a corporation (like one producing military weapons) needs to be highly regulated, or the government must seize a monopoly until it can be broken up.

12. Fully agreed. Govt unions must be destroyed without compromise or mercy.

13. "Czars" are necessary due to the increasing complexity demanded of the executive branch. Although, I agree with more congressional involvement in how they are selected and approved.

14. No. We need government agencies, and in particular those agencies. Although, some need considerable reform.

15.  Fully agree. Transparency is essential for good government.

16. Short of a Parliamentary system, I agree as well.

17. A zero-based balanced budget sounds impossible. Moreover, a surplus is desirable as a savings for future expenses like wars. Of course, that surplus shouldn't be outrageous.

18. Most people are over taxed. Most people's taxes should be lowered, and the difference covered by the elite (people with hundreds of millions and billions). It's a fair request for the rent-seeking and insider trading they have been up to.

19. Fair tax = black market.

20. LOL? Sorry, I prefer to have more public services.

21. I agree we should do our best to limit inflation.

22. Agreed. Earmarks are ridiculous.

23. Some jurisdictions hire a private company to provide police forces. So government can't have police forces now?

24. I agree with adjusting many regulations. Ironically, the EPA has regulations that effectively defeat its purpose by giving some companies an incentive not to update their plants at all.

25. Eliminate minimum wage? Eh. That gives me some anxiety.

26. "Right to Work"? That sounds like something Brezhnev would say.

> [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:

Pretty sure legalising gay marriage/accepting gay lifestyles isn't going to magically turn everybody on the planet into a raging homosexual and immediately lead to the collapse of all society.

That is just retarded.>

And that is not what I said. Considering the consequences of a lifestyle if everyone did it is perfectly legitimate.

Rising,

1. Psychoanalysis is pseudo science.
2. I said we should be tolerant of homosexuals. We just should not condone their lifestyles. Whether their sexual preference is natural or a matter of choice is irrelevant.
3. Your grasp of genetics is poor. Polygamy is such a bad idea that it's the reason why some populations are effectively inbred.
4. I am a supporter of zero-population growth, meaning 2 children per couple.

There are practical reasons to privilege heterosexuality above homosexuality. Although we should be tolerant of alternative lifestyles, we should never condone them when practical considerations conflict with their lifestyle. Imagine if everyone was homosexual. Society would collapse, obviously.

Except, my pandering happened before you were a forum mod. So you know it's authentic .

Long live Zarf!

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Just you?

Personally, I think the state should not recognize marriage. It should belong to the churches, and any other couple who wants to call themselves "married."

For me, gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction. The right direction is simply not having the state recognize it, and letting people create their own contracts appropriate to their own needs.

The best solution is to grant Palestinians American citizenship and bring them over here with semi-autonomous status, to keep those Californians in line.

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> ...and then watch the U.S. decline at an even greater rate.>

Pensions and Unions provide no national benefit.

It's bad news, for sure. It could cause a lot of friction and economic hardship, but I doubt it will collapse the system. Hopefully it leads to needed reforms. I'm confident a more centralized EU government will be on the table, because the lack of centralization has clearly been a problem.

And lolz at Germany seeking to rule Europe again. Without its Prussian values, Germany doesn't have the potential to be a great military power again.

I agree. This is what I was trying to tell you in the China thread. Global population and investment are both rapidly rising. These circumstances will ultimately defeat any progress towards cosmopolitanism, because barbarism and ruthless competition for resources will become the state of affairs.

Presently, the Western world has the power to preserve or destroy itself. We can either invest in a long-term win-lose strategy in exchange for security, or we can insist on short-term economic gains while sacrificing our future. Without a technological miracle, which is foolish to rely on, our choice is simple.

Wornstrum,

Theoretically, most "democracies" are nominally representative democracies. While elected officials are considered representatives, the reality is that the relevant political positions are effectively restricted to competition by the elite members of society. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions that prove the rule. As a result, there is some measure of meritocracy among the elite who compete to gain the people's favor, and the Liberal institutions in the democracy guarantee that elites in democratic countries are much more accountable.

The advantage of "democracy" is not that the people rule, but that the elite are more accountable to the people. I fail to see how the "majority rule" and "people power" hypothesis is or ever was reflective of the political realities of democratic governments.

Additionally, I am strongly opposed to an active, participatory democracy. That would result in such tyranny... I can't imagine it being any better than living under Ghadaffi. Moreover, popular revolutions (as opposed to elite revolutions like the US Revolutionary War), tend to have nasty outcomes like the French and Russian revolutions.

It's a relevant update. And I am furious.