Printable View
I apologize if this shouldn't be in this forum.
We spend quite a bit of time complaining about the system, and the political parties on this forum, so I decided to post this. It's pretty simple, make your own party, say what they stand for on the issues, name them. I will post one later on, after you guys have posted a few.
Let's see.
98% tax on the salaries of actors, musicians, professional athletes, etc. Think of the good that tax money can do.
Pro gun ownership.
Pro death penalty; extend it to serial rapists, serial child molesters, and the like.
We should use criminals in prisons for hard physical labor. Maybe put some of them in the Army, if they're able.
Illegalize school sports, including college sports; divert all funds to EDUCATION.
Eliminate the welfare system, or vastly limit its scope (like 2 years per lifetime per person, or something).
Huge penalties for people who have more than 2 children. Tax penalties for example.
Illegalize the use of religious words on money, the Pledge, etc. Turn the "line" that separates church and state into a 20-foot steel wall guarded by cyborgs (figuratively speaking).
Abortion: No opinion, which probably equates to pro-choice.
A national minimum age limit for getting a driver's license: 21 years old.
Anti corporate bribery. That'd be a hard one to enforce.
As far as the name, no idea. Republicratipendents.
I agree with Unne on most of his except the sports. Sports help a lot of kids saty out of trouble liek myself for example. If I wasn't at school for another 2 hours eachday practicing I could be hanging out on the streets doing who knows what. And I don't understand the drivers age thing? Why 21?
Harsh stuff there Unne! But, I assume you have your reasons, which is just as well.
As for me:
- Reform the welfare system in the USA, move it to a Social Democratic Welfare system with Universal healthcare and a progressive income tax, like most of the Western World has.
- Change the Presidency from two, four-year terms, to a single 6 year term.
- Restrict all guns unless you can make a legitimate case for needing one for your survival.
- Have a truly free press, and no classified documents running around.
- Create a committee to "Modernize" the US Constitution, as in, have judges, senators, and other elected members of government re-read the document and interpret it for modern use, so the debate of whether or not the laws adher to our times is rendered moot.
- Eliminate all hard money sponsorship and fund-raising for political parties. Any party that wants to run for power, and can actually be deemed capable of running a country, and no leading it into ruin (Nazi, Communist parties, etc, etc), will get Government money to run ads, and campaign.
- Shrink the army, and disarm all nuclear weapons. Of course, this hinges on the notion that ALL countries will comply.
- Pump money freed from the military into education and public works.
- Lower tariffs on goods coming into the country, but attempt to promote domestic goods as well.
- Attempt to completely end discrimination of any kind, be it through race, religion, or sexual orientation within reason. (Of course, this would not allow hate groups to exist, nor radical fundemental religious groups bent on murdering infidels).
- Salary cap on sports
- Keep your religion to yourself! You can practice it, but do not preach to the masses of un-conformed. Religion is a private matter, so you can worship with whomever you like, but when you begin to inflict your beliefs on others, that's crossing the line.
- Encourage time off for employees so that they can spend time with their families.
- Have a second, much more strict road test when you turn 25, to see if you really are a good driver and warrant a decrease in insurance rates.
More to come, but that's plenty for now, I'd warrant.
I think I'd call myself, an Optimistic Realist.
Take care all.
I like Unne's idea, except for putting criminals in the military. I know I wouldn't want to serve next to a convicted murderer. Especially if he has an automatic rifle and is literally next to me in a foxhole.
I'm voting for The Captain.
And I agree with DocFrance. It's probably not a good idea to give the criminals guns. Not only that, but they could run off as soon as they had the chance. I would.
Let's see.
-45% tax on the salaries of actors, musicians, professional athletes, etc. Think of the good that tax money can do.
-Pro gun ownership.
-Pro death penalty; extend it to serial rapists, serial child molesters, and the like. Cut the hands off child molesters and rapists, if it is a male cut there penis off and hands depending on the certain case. If its female, cut there hands off.
-We should use criminals in prisons for hard physical labor.
-Abortion is illegal, because its like legalized murder.
-A national minimum age limit for getting a driver's license: 21 years old.
-Anti corporate bribery. That'd be a hard one to enforce.
-Tax Cuts for every class. Everybody is equal, not just some pacific class like the rich. If you want to be rich like them work hard enough and it will happen.
-Ban SUVs, make a nationwide recall of all cars and go hydrogen engine so we arnt dependent on foreign oil.
-Lock up people in jail who are severally addicted to drugs, since drugs counseling doesnt work.
-Get rid of the demogauge party.
-Ban people from coming to this country illegally.
-Toughen up are borders, including the USA/Mexican border. Anyone can cross and its a open door to terrorists. We dont want people coming in here commiting crimes and running to the Mexican border for safety when the Mexican government doesnt help us whiles millions of Mexicans are crossing over the border every few years. The Mexican government is in no position of negotiating they either aby to are criminal justice system. Or a anti-trade embargo against them will happen. Also by having a billions of dollars of sensors on are borders so we can pinpoint where people are crossing, especially drug traffictors.
-Ban cutting or deforesting of trees. We use and cut down so much trees that mother earth is dying, and we continue to do so. It will not help are O-Zone.
-Build a tower of babel, inside powered magnets to pull gigantic objects into space to speed up space travel/production. Cost estimated in the trillions, but its worth it in the long run.
-Exile people who dont appreciate the military, for with out one there is no America.
-Create a King Arthurs court
The Republicans
Oh, my political party would be simple:
The more votes we get, the more seats we have in the parliment.
...
Leave them empty.
- Slash military spending, divert funds to education, research, environment.
- Restrict abortion to life-or-death cases, and cases of rape.
- Hike tax on tobacco products
- Ban the death penalty.
- Subsidise amateur sports organisations.
- Subsidise research and development of renewable energy sources, especially solar power.
- severe restrictions on gun ownership.
-Divert all money from EVERYTHING, and put it in MILITARY, then...
TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
...
Seriously though... Israel has the largest military budget in the world, compared to the entire budget... that's 29% percent. I think it has to change. We don't need so many tanks and airplanes, especially when our enemy now is kicking our arse via other means. A lot of reforms need to be made, a wall has to be built... bleh, it'll take ages. I think I'll just stick with World Domination.
the more money for me act, a law which makes it so i get all the money i ask for.
Yea, my vote goes to The Captain right now, I'll post my own one soon.
Let's see, I really don't like to prohibit people from doing things they like to do, but a lot of the time the things that people do for fun are harmful. So I'd try to make a system where things work off of tax credits. For instance, if you drive a Honda, you will receive a certain percentage of your taxes refunded to you, and if you drive a Hummer, your taxes will be significantly higher. Same for gun owners. If you own no guns, your taxes will be lower, if you own one revolver you will pay a little bit more and if you have a dozen semi-automatic weapons you'll pay much more. This system would be the basis for how rights and priveleges are handed out, and it'll never forcibly take something away from anyone.
I may as well list my position on some other things.
-In order to vote, you cannot simply idly sit by and wait for your 18th birthday. No matter the age, whether it's 12 or 35, you'll have to be able to pass an aptitude test.
-Prostitution will be legal for adults, all drugs will be legal for adults too.
-Drinking age will be lowered to 18, where it should be.
-Welfare recipients will be monitored heavily and will have to prove at any given moment that at least 50% of the money they received went to food or clothes or rent or something like that.
-No speed limits on most highways.
-No more of FCC's regulations that are directly contradicting the 1st amendment.
-A Welfare-type system for high school graduates will be set up in order to allow young adults to simultaneously pay for car insurance, college, and rent without going to school and work full time. The more successful you are at school the more you get, and vice versa.
-Military budget will be slashed drastically. The hundreds of billions saved annually will be spent on something useful like alternative power sources.
-My party will hit very hard on the seperation of church and state issue. No more religious prayers on federal buildings or currency. Prayer doesn't belong anywhere near legislation.
-Prisons will be reformed. There will be harsh extensions added to prisoners' sentences for violent behavior. The basis of the prison system will be rehabilitation rather than punishment.
-No death sentence.
-Universal health care. I don't understand how any civilized nation can be without one!
-Somehow reform campaign financing so that the rich aren't the only ones with the opportunity to join the ruling class.
-Gradually push for a 25% decrease in prices for everything and a 25% decrease in the amount of hours in the average worker's week. Hopefully that will balance things out, as well as give people more free time and open up some more jobs.
-Universal health care. I don't understand how anycivilizedsocialist nation can be without one! --LH
Bit of a typo there.
Well, either the Regressive Party or this:
-Favors progressive tax so that citizens are taxed based on the amout that they can pay.
-Ensures that all laws are within the boundaries of the constitution.
-Which means that homosexual marriages are legal
-Seperation of Church and State STRICTLY enforced.
-War only undertaken as absolute LAST resort, and only when attacked by another nation.
-Focus on domestic policies instead of foreign policies (as in who we are sending troops to and whatnot. Diplomacy is still a focus)
-Believes in promoting peaceful solutions for all problems.
-Maintain military to full strength, just in case.
-Eliminate the draft, or at very least make it for both men and women.
About all I can think of thus far.
Teh luv part-ay:
Why can't we all just get along and love ones an 'nother?
There's a difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
...sorry. One cheap shot deserves another...
Da Cap gets my vote so far. Some of these things are taken from other people's.
- Nationalize the illegalization of cigarette smoking in all public places.
- Legalized abortion only to victims of rape.
- Assign more hard labor sentences as opposed to simply prison sentences.
- Eliminate the welfare system, or vastly limit its scope (like 2 years per lifetime per person, or something).
- Salary cap on ALL sports (this means you, baseball)
- Restrict all guns unless you can make a legitimate case for needing one for your survival.
- More penalties on bad parenting. Actually enforce a foster care system for parents that don't know how to be parents.
Some very nice points there King Bahamut.
The abortion issue is tricky because going either way would turn off a lot of people. Then again, the vast majority of people who are against abortion are also against stem cell research, which I think is silly.
It was announced that Nancy Reagen, soon to be Ronald's widow, he's expected to pass away within the week, favors stem cell research because perhaps it could have cured her husband. This is quite a kick to the teeth of a lot of Republicans who worship the Reagens as Gods. The way I see it, if any sort of research, which doesn't actually harm already living beings, can lead to cures, I'm for it.
Take care all.
"It was announced that Nancy Reagen, soon to be Ronald's widow, he's expected to pass away within the week,"
oh GOD, I won't be able to turn on the TV for a week or two after he kicks it.
I would give my ideas, but, honestly, I would be a brutal dictator :(
I'd just like to sneak in here real quick and let everyone know that salary caps in sports aren't a federal issue, and never have been, and really have no reason to ever be.
That is all.
All right, I'll try to come up with a few policies:
-prison sentences for violent crime only, anyone else gets community service
-no death penalty
-legalise all drugs
-legalise prostitution (except child prostitution, of course)
-limited access to cars, people have to prove they need a private car
-abolish compulsory military service
-close all religious schools
-dispossess racist employers
-free healthcare and public transport, free school dinner; raise taxes if necessary to pay for that
-slowly replace nuclear power with free energy as far as possible
-discourage abortion, but don't criminalise it; educate about ways to prevent unwanted pregancy
-ban that stuff that makes the ozone hole bigger
-shorten the working week to create more jobs
Why should religious schools be banned? I attend one myself, and have done so for all my life. They are private institutions that support themselves (thus they are often some of the most impoverish) but they are known for generally better performance than public schools, as well as better environments. I think private schools, religious or otherwise, are in most cases better than public schools, even if they are more than a little pricey (my high school costs more than college will next year).
"I'd just like to sneak in here real quick and let everyone know that salary caps in sports aren't a federal issue, and never have been, and really have no reason to ever be.
That is all."
That is true, but I can think of billions of things to do with 252+ million dollars, and paying A-Rod isn't one of them. Cutting the excess somewhere, I think sports would be a good place, would allow the money to be relocated elsewhere, where it can be more helpful. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE sports, but I really think the product wouldn't suffer if a salary cap was implimented.
- Another new rule: Ban any form of attack ads during a campaign. These, more than anything else have turned me almost completely off to the current campaign. I'll start paying attention again during the debates, but I refuse to sit through another attack ad by either side.
Take care all.
Attack ads are probably one of the more irritating things about the elections, besides the messy business of having to watch the president screw up for four years.
"That is true, but I can think of billions of things to do with 252+ million dollars, and paying A-Rod isn't one of them."
Taxes don't pay his salary. You don't like it, don't go, and the sports will run out of money and HAVE to pay athletes less.
Of course, in Doomgaze's America, sports would be outlawed as we'd all be training to rain fire and destruction down upon the middle east, europe, canada, south america, mexico, africa, asia, australia, mars, and the sun.
Tax money built two new sports stadiums in my town in the past decade. Under the rule of my party, those stadiums would be obliterated and replaced with something more useful, for example a cheese factory or a large empty lot containing a duck pond.
That happened down here too, but the people DID vote for it.
What? You can use the money to build a giant cardbox!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
If I were to make a political party, I would enforce the death sentence for anyone who didn't think for him or herself. Unfortunately, most of the party members would have to be executed, making this the most self-destructive party ever.
So... scratch that thought.
That includes most of the human race.Quote:
If I were to make a political party, I would enforce the death sentence for anyone who didn't think for him or herself. Unfortunately, most of the party members would have to be executed, making this the most self-destructive party ever.
A few more modifications:
- Begin the long process of switching gasoline powered cars to more environmentally friendly ones, and replace the old factories in Detroit with new ones that create these types instead, so that jobs won't be lost.
- Being to phase out IQ tests, as they are really not a fair assessment of ones intelligence.
- Begin to use the ACT over the SAT when applying for colleges.
- Though this one is probably VERY hard to do, find an alternative to the Electoral College: This would actually force nominees to campaign in more states, ones that until now have been rendered insignificant because of their few Electoral votes and might lead to more voter turn out. Also, would avoid a future conflicts a la` Bush-Gore 2000.
Take care all.
Taken from a paper I wrote last year:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
In general, three different ideas have been the most supported thus far: a direct election, a district method (currently used by Maine and Nebraska), or a proportional method.
The direct election is the most unlikely of the three to be realized, because it requires a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College. Small states, too, would lose a considerable amount of voting power and would probably be reluctant to have that taken from them. Proponents, however, hail the direct vote as the closest system to the old adage, “one man, one vote.” The problem that detractors have with this is the remarkable similarities between the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate. If the Electoral College were to be removed, the Senate would theoretically follow because of the problem of over-representation that exists in that institution. Naturally, no one would ever think of dismantling Congress, and supporters of the College suggest that this system works the same way. With checks and balances, the legislature and the executive should be no different from each other.
The district method refers to the allocation of electors’ votes by congressional districts. The remaining two electors (parallel to the two state senators) would vote according to the majority vote statewide. Put simply, one candidate could win 21 California congressional districts and earn 21 electoral votes, while another candidate could win the remaining 31 districts and earn 31 electoral votes. After that is settled, the majority vote (we’ll say 60% for the first candidate and 40% for the second) would determine the final two electoral votes (in this case, the first candidate with 60%). Maine and Nebraska, as mentioned before, already use this method, and there is legislation pending in 22 other states.
Proportional voting calls for reform to distribute elector votes to reflect the voting percentages in the state. From the above example, the candidate with 60% of the vote would theoretically win 32 votes, while the candidate with 40% would earn the other 22 votes. This method has admitted not be researched enough but, like district voting, would only require legislation in the separate states to take effect. Each method would be legal, provided the supporters take the right steps to implement them, because the Supreme Court decisions McPherson v. Blacker (1892) and Ray v. Blair (1952) provided states with the leverage to choose their electors as they see fit and require those electors to vote according to their pledges.
Reformers, larger in number, have been able to capture the American public’s attention. Politicians and citizen groups dismayed over the results of the 2000 election comprise of the vast majority of these reformers, including John Anderson (an Independent presidential candidate in 1980) and powerful groups like the League of Women Voters. The few College supporters, however, are dismayed at the thought of reform because of the importance of the College to the national government’s federal system. By replacing the current system with a direct election, it would betray the original purpose laid out by Hamilton back in the late 1700s: to represent every individual state’s choice. As mentioned before, the College wasn’t designed to reflect the nation as a whole, but was rather invented to protect each state’s interest by using Congress (through electors) as a measure of letting the people vote for an executive leader. The fervor behind reform, however, seems to conveniently ignore history in favor of the “here and now.”
" As mentioned before, the College wasn’t designed to reflect the nation as a whole, but was rather invented to protect each state’s interest by using Congress (through electors) as a measure of letting the people vote for an executive leader. The fervor behind reform, however, seems to conveniently ignore history in favor of the “here and now.” "
It's very ironic how little faith the founding fathers really had with regards to the common citizen.
Take care all.
I'm sorry, I've just read this. I should have replied earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
No offense to people attending religious schools or working there. It's just that over here, there were many problems with a particular muslim school recently, where they were teaching things that disagreed with local law, claiming it was part of the religion. If people from all religions would attend the same schools, that couldn't happen.
But perhaps banning them would be wrong. I should change that policy. As long as they're not teaching violence or hate (which that muslim school was), they're all right, especially since the public school system isn't all that great.
My thoughts exactly. It'd be foolish to punish all private schools for the actions of one.Quote:
But perhaps banning them would be wrong. I should change that policy. As long as they're not teaching violence or hate (which that muslim school was), they're all right, especially since the public school system isn't all that great.
I would hope it goes without saying that any institution that breeds violence and hatred should be banned from society, yet, we let them fall through the cracks more often than not, if we as a society can turn these terrible feelings toward a common target. It happened with Slavery, with women for a time, and now, with anyone of Middle-Eastern background or affiliation. The reverse is also true, now probably more than ever, with some blacks using reverse-racism on whites, and certain Arabs plotting the deaths of "infidels". Will this cycle ever end? Why are the young always left to deal with the problems of those who come before? Does no one in power right now have any idea what this hatred and separation will do to the future?
We, as the future, must take a stand against the hatred, against the oppression, and show that as a people, not under a flag, or a religion, but as a world, can co-exist and make our lives happy and not full of fear and blind prejudice. Together, I do believe we can accomplish this.
Take care all.
Wow, it's amazing how much stuff people would ban if they had a chance. Some of them are good ideas but infringe on other people's civil liberties (capping salaries, banning smoking nationwide, aptitude test to be able to vote). I don't know whether to find this gleeful banning philosophy interesting or scary.
[qq=Anaralia]Wow, it's amazing how much stuff people would ban if they had a chance. Some of them are good ideas but infringe on other people's civil liberties (capping salaries, banning smoking nationwide, aptitude test to be able to vote). I don't know whether to find this gleeful banning philosophy interesting or scary.[/qq]
To explain my opinion on smoking:
Smoking kills people. No question about it. Smoking AROUND other people kills them. I don't want to be murdered by something that I don't have a choice on. Thus, less people will die if smoking is banned nationwide. Of course, I only said in public places, because on private property...you can do what you want. Kill yourself for all I care.
As distasteful as I find smoking, and as much as I hate smoking and the scent of smokers, they do have the right to smoke in a public place, as it is open to everyone and they have the right to smoke there. Private places can and do ban smoking in some or all areas, I just wish there were more places that did do this.Quote:
Smoking kills people. No question about it. Smoking AROUND other people kills them. I don't want to be murdered by something that I don't have a choice on. Thus, less people will die if smoking is banned nationwide. Of course, I only said in public places, because on private property...you can do what you want. Kill yourself for all I care.
I agree 100% that smoking should be banned for the reasons stated by KB. Is smoking REALLY a right? Where in the Constitution is the right to smoke?
The reason smoking is legal is because the government can impose a large tax upon it and profit. Banning smoking would hurt the government more than people's rights, frankly, and that's why it's still legal.
As for the salary cap. I believe the NFL, NBA, and NHL have caps, and I haven't heard any sort of legel problem with that either. The MLB needs to curb the over-spending in my opinion, and need to impose a cap.
Finally, with the IQ tests for voting, I'm still on the fence there. I see why it would be a good idea, but that, IS indeed crossing the line with regards to civil liberties. Perhaps, if a law was passed that made it clear what exactly voting privileges are, then people wouldn't take it for granted, and they'd actually vote.
Take care all.
As distasteful as I find smoking, and as much as I hate smoking and the scent of smokers, they do have the right to smoke in a public place, as it is open to everyone and they have the right to smoke there. ~ Behold The Void
So I have the right to assault people in public places? Or maybe to kill people in public places? Because, you know, it's in public so I have the right. :)
Or maybe not.
[Qq=Behold the Void]As distasteful as I find smoking, and as much as I hate smoking and the scent of smokers, they do have the right to smoke in a public place, as it is open to everyone and they have the right to smoke there. Private places can and do ban smoking in some or all areas, I just wish there were more places that did do this.[/Qq]
People also have an unalienable right to breathe. If I wish to breath clean air, then I should have that right above a person who wishes to breathe air full of poison. One could even argue that smoking in a public place is terrorism. You're releasing a poison in a public place which kills people. Whether or not it's intentional is another story. :p
My point wasn't against any of those ideas specifically, I only wanted to point out the trend of wanting to create laws much, much more restricting than those we already have, and gave three examples off the top of my head, because I'm too lazy to go back and read the thread again.
And now, I'll shut up until I think of some ideas of my own for a political party.
Indeed, it does seem that the vast majority of people here seem to think that stricter laws are needed to improve society, yet while at the same time, attempting to create more freedom. Seems almost a Catch-22.
Take care all.
I like to breathe too, but I know that second-hand smoke is only life threatening when exposed almost constantly for many years. Again, I don't really think we have the right to deny people the right to smoke, we already deny people so many rights already. I don't really like taking rights away from people unless it is utterly necessary.
I fail to see how this can relate to smoking, assault is something wholly different. As I said above, it takes years of regular exposure to smoke to cause serious damage.Quote:
So I have the right to assault people in public places? Or maybe to kill people in public places? Because, you know, it's in public so I have the right.
Unless you have asthma or weak lungs, in which case, only a few days of second hand smoke can prove fatal.
Take care all.
Yes. It was once reported on the news that a woman had lung cancer due to second-hand smoke, yet she didn't smoke, and neither did her family, both childhood and currently. She was never around smoke consistently.
Really? I hadn't heard of any such cases. Would you happen to have a link?
For God's sake ·_·Quote:
Originally Posted by King Bahamut
I am a smoker, OK, I don't think banning smoke would make you very popular. Right to breathe? Not breathe air full of posion? Then ban cars, motorbikes, factories, planes, ships...
You wish to ban unhealthy things? Ban McDonald's, ban mobile phones, ban computer monitors, ban televisions, ban Britney Spears music, ban extra hours from work, ban George Bush speeches...
Then again, since I am a terrorist smoker, I have to beware since I have in my hands a weapon of mass destruction, by smoking I am releasing a gas that kills people. I thought people arround me fell to the ground dead because of my body odor, but now I see I am in fact wrong.
Would you ban Humphrey Bogart films too? Hell, you are taking the whole politically right crap too far.
I can understand the banning of smoking in public, closed areas. For example, the office, the mall, the supermarket, the restaurant, the bus...OK. However, banning smoking in- for example- the middle of the street or the park is just ridiculous. You do not want second hand smoking, well, when you see the smoker you have a wide space to walk away from him. Also, I can't defend banning smoke from pubs, it's like...painting Notre Damme pink, only I can understand some people may agree with it (With banning smoke, anyone who wants a pink cathedral deserves to be shot inmediately). I still think it would take the charm out of it.
Think of all the money you would save if you didn't have to buy cigarettes anymore.
Besides, whether you enjoy it or not, it does kill the person who is using it, and what disgusts me more is that people profit from it, like Big Business.
Take care all.
[qq=Behold the Void]Really? I hadn't heard of any such cases. Would you happen to have a link?[/qq]
Remembering the case more, it was in a health video I watched in 9th grade, showing a clip of a news broadcast or something. I'll ask my health teacher tomorrow what the title of that video was.
[qq=Shadow Nexus]For God's sake ·_·
I am a smoker, OK, I don't think banning smoke would make you very popular. Right to breathe? Not breathe air full of posion? Then ban cars, motorbikes, factories, planes, ships...[/qq]
All of those things are necessary for our society to operate properly. They have a purpose. Cars, motorbikes, planes, and ships provide needed transportation. Factories are a must for our industrial economy. Bannings cars would completely destroy the way our current society operates.
[qq=Shadow Nexus]You wish to ban unhealthy things? Ban McDonald's, ban mobile phones, ban computer monitors, ban televisions, ban Britney Spears music, ban extra hours from work, ban George Bush speeches...[/qq]
Every single thing you just listed, besides the McDonald's, does not affect my physical health at all. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. And I have a choice on whether I choose to go to McDonald's...it seems as if I never have a choice on being besides smokers. If I have to wait a certain place for a ride, like today, outside of Best Buy, and someone beside me smokes, I cannot move. It should be them that goes far away, to a place where nobody has to deal with it. And cigarette smoke travels, so that limits them to pretty much only alleys, and their homes.
[qq=Shadow Nexus]Then again, since I am a terrorist smoker, I have to beware since I have in my hands a weapon of mass destruction, by smoking I am releasing a gas that kills people. I thought people arround me fell to the ground dead because of my body odor, but now I see I am in fact wrong. [/qq]
I hope you would realize that the analogy to terrorism was meant in sarcasm, as noted by the :p after saying it. However, terrorists often use poison gas as a means of their destructive evils, and cigarette smoke is a poison.
[qq=Shadow Nexus]Would you ban Humphrey Bogart films too? Hell, you are taking the whole politically right crap too far.[/qq]
This is getting ridiculous. Watching a Humphrey Bogart won't make me cough and keep me from breathing.
[qq=Shadow Nexus]I can understand the banning of smoking in public, closed areas. For example, the office, the mall, the supermarket, the restaurant, the bus...OK. However, banning smoking in- for example- the middle of the street or the park is just ridiculous. You do not want second hand smoking, well, when you see the smoker you have a wide space to walk away from him.[/qq]
Say I'm there first. A smoke comes up besides me, as it's happened many times while I'm waiting for a ride, and they begin to smoke. I'm not about to walk away from him; it's him infringing on my right to breathe. I'm not gonna to go out of my way to breathe right. Smokers can handle clean air; many non-smokers, like myself, cannot handle smoke-filled air. The air of smoke is so putrid to me, I cannot even be within 20 feet of it, because it does travel that far.
[qq=Shadow Nexus]Also, I can't defend banning smoke from pubs, it's like...painting Notre Damme pink, only I can understand some people may agree with it (With banning smoke, anyone who wants a pink cathedral deserves to be shot inmediately). I still think it would take the charm out of it.[/qq]
I will give you the pub issue. A pub is a place where you know there will be smoke, and you can choose not to go in. However, a street or a park, there shouldn't have to be smoke in it. Not judging, but many times a cigarette smoker chooses not to care about the people around him/her, and refuses to put their cigarette out when asked, even when children are near. A cigarette smoker should only be allowed to smoke in a place where nobody can be harmed by its destructive poisons. And determining what is "safe" is much too hard; ban it in public altogether is the best means, in my opinion.
Most of your post seems to be based on thinly thought-out material, and grasping for irrelevant information. Few times do smokers realize how disgusting it is to all other people, and how much cigarette smokers effect non-smokers' lives. I'm not saying this is you, but it is still true. Many times people do not have choices on whether they have to breathe the poisonous air created by cigarettes, and the health of both people should be put first, as opposed to the smoker's addiction. If they wish to poison themselves and kill themselves, they should be free to do that only at their home, where the smoke cannot affect other people.
Yes, yes, I know. My point was....don't call our air "clean air", for God's sake.Quote:
All of those things are necessary for our society to operate properly. They have a purpose. Cars, motorbikes, planes, and ships provide needed transportation. Factories are a must for our industrial economy. Bannings cars would completely destroy the way our current society operates.
Well, if the smoke moves to the west, position yourself to the east. I don't think it's such a big deal.Quote:
The air of smoke is so putrid to me, I cannot even be within 20 feet of it, because it does travel that far.
Uh, yeah, I could guess that, but it still sounded pseudo-serious. Like "I joke about it buy I am partly right".Quote:
I hope you would realize that the analogy to terrorism was meant in sarcasm, as noted by the after saying it. However, terrorists often use poison gas as a means of their destructive evils, and cigarette smoke is a poison.
Quote:
This is getting ridiculous. Watching a Humphrey Bogart won't make me cough and keep me from breathing.
And this is where I was being sarcastic. Plus, Britney Spears- according to scientifical investigations by the University of Elbonia, lowers your IQ permanently a 25%.Quote:
Every single thing you just listed, besides the McDonald's, does not affect my physical health at all. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
Well, and sometimes people stab other people in the eyes. Idiots are everywhere, smokers and non-smokers, I don't think what you are saying is a valid point, because it depends on the attitude of the person. It's like wanting to declare dry law because some people get drunk.Quote:
Not judging, but many times a cigarette smoker chooses not to care about the people around him/her, and refuses to put their cigarette out when asked, even when children are near.
What, you think I am going to waste money con cancer sticks? :pQuote:
Think of all the money you would save if you didn't have to buy cigarettes anymore.
In fact, above I said I was a smoker. No, I am not, I am a person that smokes. In other words, I enjoy smoking, hell, I really do, but I realise I do not want it to become an addiction, so I smoke leaving big gaps of time between smoke and smoke. In other words, I just smoke one or two cigarrettes per week, and if I overpass that limit, I don't smoke in all the next week. I haven't smoked this week, for example. I have never bought a pack: I ask friends for a cigarrette.
[qq=Shadow Nexus]What, you think I am going to waste money con cancer sticks?
In fact, above I said I was a smoker. No, I am not, I am a person that smokes. In other words, I enjoy smoking, hell, I really do, but I realise I do not want it to become an addiction, so I smoke leaving big gaps of time between smoke and smoke. In other words, I just smoke one or two cigarrettes per week, and if I overpass that limit, I don't smoke in all the next week. I haven't smoked this week, for example. I have never bought a pack: I ask friends for a cigarrette.[/qq]
Somebody must purchase them. They are giving that money to people who, even now, don't admit that cigarette smoking is addictive, and kills. While you may not be, most cigarette "smokers" are addicted. They become obsessed with smoking, and these are the people which ignore the requests of others to put out their cigarettes. I, for one, have asked around 10 people to put out their cigarettes, and not a single one has. They laugh at me and tell me that it's "my problem." I can only base my judgments on those who I have dealt with.
Uh...were you in an open space? I don't know if I'd turn my cigarrette out, cause I only have one a week :b But I'd probably just move to another place and finish the cigarrette there. Well, thats what I do when people are bothered. Of course, the places where I generally smoke are:Quote:
Originally Posted by King Bahamut
1- Poetry class. Everyone's a smoker there, and the people who are not are really not bothered by smoke.
2- University, student's room, or how I like to call it, "the marihuana submarine". After entering there, even if you haven't smoked a thing, you are...a little bit happy...for some reason..related to....nice smell :D I bet this only happens at the Philosophy university. Oh, and in the art one.
"1- Poetry class. Everyone's a smoker there, and the people who are not are really not bothered by smoke.
2- University, student's room, or how I like to call it, "the marihuana submarine". After entering there, even if you haven't smoked a thing, you are...a little bit happy...for some reason..related to....nice smell I bet this only happens at the Philosophy university. Oh, and in the art one."
We must live in two very different types of societies. If either of these instances occurred on campus at the school I attend, you'd be in a heap of trouble. Then again, most places in America are much more strict when it comes to smoking when compared with places in Europe.
Take care all.
Really? Well, in my university it is normal to see someone smoking weed outside the class. In fact, I bet most teachers smoke weed too, so well, it's not like anyone has a problem with that, except for the puritan Opus Dei metaphysics teachers :DQuote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
Most American campuses, I believe, usually have more alcohol than drugs, not to say that drugs aren't used in large quantities as well. But they do at least ATTEMPT to crack down on it.