Supreme Dictator of the United States
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
(08-03-2014 06:54 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  He also went on this weird diatribe about how he would take one male and like 300 women up in a spaceship to colonize mars and forcibly impregnant them all.

Like the bible-thumping puritanical holier than thou mormons where official church doctrine is that the more wives a man has, the bigger the planet god will give him after he dies. It was a way for dirty old men to bang all the young girls they wanted and convince themselves it was god's will.

It's always the self-proclaimed morality police that have the most to hide. I loved it when Ted Haggard bought crystal meth from his male escort, and when George Reker, founder of an anti-gay group, hired a guy from rentboy.com to go on a 2 week sexual romp in Europe. And then when he was caught red-handed, he claimed he didn't know what the boy did and he hired him to carry his luggage--except that Rekers was caught on film carrying his own luggage as well as his boy toy's. Now I'm gleefully waiting for Rick Santorum to get caught running craigslist ads petitioning guys to come to his gloryhole and get serviced. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2014, 10:48 AM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
@OP, why stop at the middle east? There's US military everywhere.
Korea, Germany, the Balkan.
There's US nukes stored on an army base in The Netherlands, get rid of those, would ya!

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Caveman's post
08-03-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
(07-03-2014 10:57 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  15. I would cut NASA down to size, eliminating all projects that do not involve earthly affairs and benefits. The journey to the stars can continue when we don't owe so much damn money.

Nah, I would get a productive colony up and running as soon as possible, then, I would leave earth, sell all of the land in america, and properly destroy my debt.
Then, on my colony, we would barely have a economy/currency, and we would research all day.
Once I colonize the whole planet, I would go to another planet and repeat.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
08-03-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
The power would likely go to my head. I'd probably want more and try to take the world!
Assuming however that this didn't happen I still would invade some countries. Specifically all the real fucked up ones!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Drunkin Druid's post
09-03-2014, 03:24 AM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2014 03:31 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
1) Destroy Citizens United.
2) Eliminate corporate lobbying.
3) 2 terms for congressman, 3 terms for senators.
4) Legalize Gay Marriage
5) Defense spending cut at increments to allow discharged members to find jobs.
6) Universal healthcare.
7) Adopt the Scandinavian education system.
8) Heavier regulation on market.
9) Tax businesses that move jobs overseas.
10) Legalize marijuana.
11) Legalize cocaine.
12) Legalize prostitution.
13) Eliminate "states rights".
14) Eliminate for-profit prisons.
15) Eliminate the death penalty.
16) Mandate equal wages for all races and sexes.
17) Lift restrictions placed on labor unions following World War II.
18) Improve foster care programs.
19) Heavier firearm restrictions.
20) Reduce lifetime of patent and copyright claims.
21) More abortion clinics.
22) Raise minimum wage.
23) Raise income tax.


Then resign, reinstate the previous system (with my changes of course) and watch how much life in the U.S improves.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
Lots of laughs in this topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2014, 09:23 AM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
(09-03-2014 03:24 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  13) Eliminate "states rights".
...
watch how much life in the U.S improves.

Let's see if you've thought this through and can answer a few basic questions to challenge your assumptions or if you're only recourse is to give me more negative reputation for trapping you in a corner...


1. If concentrating and centralizing power is really an improvement, why stop at the US national level? Why not "improve" the whole world by shifting all decision making to Washington DC? Then you could decide how to deal with the sanitation problem in New Delhi, and the traffic in Beijing. If you accept that centralizing global decision-making is a terrible idea since one central authority can't possibly know the nuances of a dilemma facing people far away, why is this any different at the national level?

2. In the real-world most countries have some mix of the decentralized authority that we libertarians advocate vs. the centralized decision-making liberals advocate. In fact, Scandinavian countries tend to be MORE libertarian this way than most places. The most extreme examples today are probably Switzerland and North Korea, but there have been many examples in history where countries have tried it your way and concentrated all the power, such as Polpot in Cambodia, Stalin in the USSR, etc. Can you think of one example where a country has gone all the way with your plan to concentrate and centralize power that has NOT been a dismal failure? Can you name just one success story of a country that tried it your way?

3. Why did you say the US should model its education system after Scandinavia when the Scandinavia system is the exact opposite of the one you advocate? Remember, in the 1970's when the Dept of Education was formed, Milton Friedman said the quality of US education would suffer as decision-making was centralized in Washington and states rights were reduced. Five years later, he was able to show a marked decrease in standardized test scores, and he warned that as long as that trend continued, the quality would continue to drop. The US has rejected that warning and continues to centralize decision-making in Washington at the Dept. of Ed. However, Scandinavia embraced Friedman's system. Some even have voucher systems with privately owned public schools. In fact, Finland took Friedman's advice all the way with the most extreme decentralized decision-making planning possible. And which country scores #1 on standardized test scores? So given that the US has been doing it your way for about 40 years, why are you now saying the US should pattern its education system on places that are doing it the opposite of what you suggest?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2014, 09:25 AM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
(09-03-2014 09:23 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-03-2014 03:24 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  13) Eliminate "states rights".
...
watch how much life in the U.S improves.

Let's see if you've thought this through and can answer a few basic questions to challenge your assumptions or if you're only recourse is to give me more negative reputation for trapping you in a corner...


1. If concentrating and centralizing power is really an improvement, why stop at the US national level? Why not "improve" the whole world by shifting all decision making to Washington DC? Then you could decide how to deal with the sanitation problem in New Delhi, and the traffic in Beijing. If you accept that centralizing global decision-making is a terrible idea since one central authority can't possibly know the nuances of a dilemma facing people far away, why is this any different at the national level?

2. In the real-world most countries have some mix of the decentralized authority that we libertarians advocate vs. the centralized decision-making liberals advocate. In fact, Scandinavian countries tend to be MORE libertarian this way than most places. The most extreme examples today are probably Switzerland and North Korea, but there have been many examples in history where countries have tried it your way and concentrated all the power, such as Polpot in Cambodia, Stalin in the USSR, etc. Can you think of one example where a country has gone all the way with your plan to concentrate and centralize power that has NOT been a dismal failure? Can you name just one success story of a country that tried it your way?

3. Why did you say the US should model its education system after Scandinavia when the Scandinavia system is the exact opposite of the one you advocate? Remember, in the 1970's when the Dept of Education was formed, Milton Friedman said the quality of US education would suffer as decision-making was centralized in Washington and states rights were reduced. Five years later, he was able to show a marked decrease in standardized test scores, and he warned that as long as that trend continued, the quality would continue to drop. The US has rejected that warning and continues to centralize decision-making in Washington at the Dept. of Ed. However, Scandinavia embraced Friedman's system. Some even have voucher systems with privately owned public schools. In fact, Finland took Friedman's advice all the way with the most extreme decentralized decision-making planning possible. And which country scores #1 on standardized test scores? So given that the US has been doing it your way for about 40 years, why are you now saying the US should pattern its education system on places that are doing it the opposite of what you suggest?

What do you suggest?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
(09-03-2014 09:25 AM)donotwant Wrote:  What do you suggest?

Just follow the rule of law, honor the constitution. Many of the US's founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, observed that every time power is concentrated in centralized in the hands of a few it's always a disaster. So the constitution mandates a system where power is dispersed and spread out as much as possible, divided into 3 distinct branches of government providing checks and balances, and ultimate power at the local level where the decision-makers are closest to the people whose lives they are affecting. And guarantee freedom of mobility so if any state becomes too oppressive, you have a safety valve as people leave.

Look up on Wikipedia the list of historic inventions, as well measures of quality of life, like life expectancy. After 7,000 years of human history there was little progress. In the 17th century people still died on average by the age of 40, with miserable lives, slavery was rampant globally, and people had little knowledge of science and the world around them. Then, during the Age of Enlightenment, the classic liberals philosophers got to do things their way in North America and Western Europe, and they turned the role of government upside down--to relinquish power to local autonomous regions rather than concentrate it centrally, to block the use of force rather than initiate it, to defend minorities from tyranny of the majority not to enforce the will of this majority. Almost instantly the state of man exploded forward in those countries that adopted this system. Life expectancy doubled, there was an industrial revolution, the end of slavery, modern medicine, advanced science.

So I think we should stick to that system that worked so well, and not go back to the miserable old system that existed for the prior 7,000 years where power is centralized and whoever controls the government gets to use force to coerce everybody into doing things their way.

Sadly, the desire to concentrate power and use violence to control other people seems to be so deeply ingrained that people aren't willing to evolve past it. Still, people are constantly pushing to concentrate and centralize power at the national level, and every time they see somebody has something they want or is doing something they don't like, they push for laws so they can send armed police officers to use force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2014, 02:02 PM
RE: Supreme Dictator of the United States
Might makes right Big Grin
It always comes down to force. If you have libertarian country with no force and a dictatorship with force, dictatorship will own them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes donotwant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: