RyanH

[Lao Tzu]

This isn't a call out or an insult, but a question asked out of curiosity & debate. What is your idea of a perfect america?


List everything right/wrong with our domestic & foreign policy. What would you change if you had the power. How would things work.

 

[Sushi X]

i'd give mine but this was'nt asked of me.

 

[Lao Tzu]

go ahead, i want to hear people's opinions in whole. I only get bits & pieces from posts.

 

[RyanH]

very broad question, so I'll start with something bad/something good:

good---our diversity.

bad--our lack of appreciation for our diversity.

 

[RyanH]

One change I would make is I would divide the Presidency into two different offices: a president who serves as a figure-head and handles foreign affairs, and another who handles the dirty work of domestic policy.

 

[doc_pup]

That is an outstanding idea, would very much take care of the bullshit where the president says one thing to appease the voters, but has to do another to keep other countries from dropping bombs on us.

 

[RyanH]

That is an outstanding idea, would very much take care of the bullshit where the president says one thing to appease the voters, but has to do another to keep other countries from dropping bombs on us.

exactly, which is why royal families often serve a useful purpose.

 

[manny78]

One change I would make is I would divide the Presidency into two different offices: a president who serves as a figure-head and handles foreign affairs, and another who handles the dirty work of domestic policy.

that looks like the french system no ?

 

[RyanH]

that looks like the french system no ?

pulled this up from a french website:

The present constitution, adopted in 1958 and revised in 1962, established the Fifth Republic and provided for a powerful president, originally Charles DE GAULLE, and a bicameral legislature with less power than it had in the past. The president is elected by direct popular vote for a 7-year term. He appoints the prime minister and may dissolve the National Assembly.

The legislature consists of a 318-member Senate elected indirectly by an electoral college, and a politically more important 577-member, directly elected National Assembly. The five overseas departments of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Reunion, and St. Pierre and Miquelon are represented in the National Assembly, as are New Caledonia, Mayotte, Wallis and Futuna Islands, and French Polynesia. Senate members serve 9-year terms, with one-third of the seats falling due for election every three years. The National Assembly is elected every five years. The minimum voting age is 18 years.

The four leading French political parties are the Socialist party; the conservative Rassemblement pour la République (RPR), founded by Charles de Gaulle and now led by Jacques CHIRAC; the Union pour la Democratie Française (UDF); and the French Communist party. Francois MITTERRAND, leader of the Socialist party, was elected president in May 1981, giving the Fifth Republic its first socialist government. When a UDF-RPR coalition won a majority of seats in the parliamentary election of 1986, Mitterrand had to call on opposition leader Chirac to form a government, marking another first for the Fifth Republic--a "cohabitation" arrangement in which the president and the prime minister were of different parties. The Chirac government modified many of the socialist reforms introduced earlier by Mitterrand. When Mitterrand was elected to a second term in 1988, he was able to replace Chirac with a succession of Socialist premiers. A second period of cohabitation under Prime Minister Edouard BALLADUR began after a Socialist defeat at the polls in March 1993. Chirac won 52.6% of the vote in the presidential election of May 1995, winning a narrow victory over his Socialist opponent, Lionel Jospin

 

[2 ton hoss]

WHY DO YOU ASSUME AS PREMISE THAT DIVERSITY IS GOOD. NOT ARGUING, JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION.

 

[RyanH]

WHY DO YOU ASSUME AS PREMISE THAT DIVERSITY IS GOOD. NOT ARGUING, JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION.

without diversity we fail to understand the entire world; moreover, we become consumed in ourselves. Recall, the reign of Adolph Hitler.

 

[Sushi X]

a perfect america would include a place where children can recieve a top notch education without fear that the school will be overrun with drugs, violence and hatred. where teachers are paid well and thurough background checks are done to ensure their safety. a society free of poverty, unemployment, crime and fear to walk down the street. a place where like ryan said, our diversity is an asset and is appreciated. where we can learn from each other and strive to progress into the future. a place where people come first over profit. the big corportations are too often bailed out and the employees get screwed out of a job and benefits like healthcare. let's talk about healthcare, i used to feel it was a luxury but it is a right. a perfect america would have universal healthcare for all and not only that but quality healthcare. our foreign policy would change as would our domestic policies. it would also include a place free of persecution and predjudice, equality and preserverance. much like the late great Dr. King advocated. i could go on but it would take much more space and a little bit more comfortable seating to do so, my pc chair sucks, lol.

 

[2 ton hoss]

without diversity we fail to understand the entire world; moreover, we become consumed in ourselves. Recall, the reign of Adolph Hitler.

NO, WITHOUT DIVERSITY IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE WORLD.

BRINGING UP HITLER IS A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. HITLER DRANK WINE - DOES THAT MEAN DRINKING WINE IS EVIL.

SIMILARLY, HITLER WANTED NO DIVERSITY. DOES THAT MEAN NO DIVERSITY IS EVIL.

ILL TAKE DIVERSITY IF IT EXISTS, BUT I WONT GO OUT OF MY WAY TO FOSTER IT.

 

[VicTusDeuS]

Just A Question-Why does it always seem that the minorities are the ones that always cry about diversity?

 

[doc_pup]

When was the last time 7 million of the majority were slain just for being in the majority?

 

[mekannik]

VicTusDeuS
Just A Question-Why does it always seem that the minorities are the ones that always cry about diversity?

I would have to ask just the opposite. Why do minorities strive and work for "purity" while expecting the majority to accept diversity? This goes back to an old thread where the point was made: a non-black asking for aid from the NCAA would be laughed at and ridiculed. However, should any group try to deny a minority of aid - racism is called out.


??????????

 

[RyanH]

NO, WITHOUT DIVERSITY IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE WORLD.

BRINGING UP HITLER IS A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. HITLER DRANK WINE - DOES THAT MEAN DRINKING WINE IS EVIL.

SIMILARLY, HITLER WANTED NO DIVERSITY. DOES THAT MEAN NO DIVERSITY IS EVIL.

ILL TAKE DIVERSITY IF IT EXISTS, BUT I WONT GO OUT OF MY WAY TO FOSTER IT.

Huh. A lack of understanding from other cultures and other ways of life has, perhaps, created some of the most precarious situations in history. For instance, during the Renaissance, much of Europe never found peace with England b/c they failed to understand England's power. Recently, America's failure to understand muslim sentiment now has us living in an era of color- coded security alerts.

And you say, diversity is not needed---history tells us otherwise.

 

[RyanH]

Just A Question-Why does it always seem that the minorities are the ones that always cry about diversity?

I'm aware of plenty of legislators, school officials, and judges who aren't minorities but still champion diversity. Example: former President Johnson and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

 

[VicTusDeuS]

I'm aware of plenty of legislators, school officials, and judges who aren't minorities but still champion diversity. Example: former President Johnson and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Well the reason I ask about this diversity is because of this article about this Mt Laurel housing law that is in effect here in NJ. The purpose of the law was to force towns to build low income housing on its land which was supposed to increase diversity.

Now this is what pisses me off. Say you have an exclusive area like Short Hills, NJ. If i am a rich doctor or lawyer who worked hard my whole life, I think i deserve to live in a community where everything is upscale and away from poverty etc etc. It is a well known fact that the poorer you are the more likely you are to commit crimes.

I am by no means rich, but I believe if there are towns with large estates they should remain as "towns for the rich" and not have the low income crap come in. It not only ruins the over all atomisphere of the town, but it lowers property values, brings in a lower class of people and raises the crime level which would probably be non existant if these poor people were not there.

The article claimed that these Mt Laurel housing decisions take minorities from the cities and encourages them to move to the country side. Can I ask what is so wrong with having a town that is 98% white? If you go to some spots of NJ you dont see these law makers having problems with towns like East Orange and Irvington that are 90% black. Why dont they start wasting some more time and money trying to diversify those areas first instead of causing urbal sprawl ruining our much needed wildlife.

 

[CAGED whiteman]

diversity sucks and people were born with different traits for survival purposes, not so they could cross breed and make millions of mutts.