Despite our guns and car accidents, Americans still have a life expectancy up to Western standards. Why bother with the trouble of removing guns completely? It would cost money and hurt the economy.

Yay, drinking alcohol increases violence!

What?
Two school shootings in one day? Wow.

My solution is:

1. The government will relax economic regulations, such as eliminating the capital gains tax. That would make our economy more attractive to invest in.
2. The government will reduce spending, especially on social programs. All social program funding will strictly adhere to the investment policy.
3. We will admit imperial overstretch, and reduce our global reach to what we can afford. We will also pursue a multilateral foreign policy. This means whining to Europe about the Iraq war. "We ffed up. Help!"
4. All tariffs will be lifted.
5. Union power will be reduced.
6. Reorganize the education system, and give preference for financial aid to students who merit it.
7. Institute a flat tax of 15%, and reduce government spending to manage with that amount. This will also increase investment, and increase revenue from elites who avoid taxes.

That's a start for me.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Lost income when you didn't have a job in the first place?>

Correct

Yes, union power must be limited.

The teachers unions... well I'm thinking bloody marble floors.

ARF,

lol. My secret is out .

jk

Skoe,

Over 8 years. Not in 1 year.

If you wanted to say "we will not fund stem cell research because we don't approve of government spending on research," then that would be a different argument from what I was addressing. I was was addressing the Christian or moral argument against stem cell research, which Yell was at least partly defending. "the argument..." referred to that argument. I am not addressing Acolyte's argument at this time.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> yah FREEDOM of FUNDING
that's one Obama brings in spades alright
it wasn't enough Bush let you do what you wanted, he denied you the pot of gold under the rainbow
if nonsubsidy = repression what about repression of religion in America?

I find it offensive and ridiculous to claim limits on human research = oppression by theocrats when the whole idea of healing the sick and caring for the poor is a christian cultural quirk

the guy who built the taj mahal didn't give a damn>

1. Christians don't have a monopoly on healing others.
2. The argument against stem cell research is based on moral arguments of Christian origin.
3. You can practice your religion, but you may not impose your uniquely religious morals on the rest of the population without resistance.

Zarf,

Well, in extreme cases, you are right. I'm not a principle trencher, so I can see how concessions on some of those values may be necessary in extreme cases. But one point of concern is that this can lead to abuses and centralization of power, and so I would try to support measures to minimize those abuses.

Some times you have to compromise, true.

___

Religious conservatives may support some morals because of practical reasons, but they also conveniently ignore the other side of the double edged sword. A practical moralist would exclude any and all non-practical morals.

Zarf,

I have sympathies toward "practical morality," but that's not what religious conservatives are about. I support educating children on hard work, but I don't on prayer. What the social conservatives do is support morality because of religion. They are principle trenchers.

Someone can support some morals for practical reasons, and that's fine. But that isn't what social conservative do, because of the religious connection.