From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:17:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.010359.16604@leland.Stanford.EDU>
muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug30.000208.21614@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (MichaelFriedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug29.173057.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU> muaddib@leland.StanfordEDU (Rob Dorfman) writes:
>>>	d> Only US citizens and US corportions may invest in any
>>>	   dept incurred by the federal government.
>>
>>Why?  Also, please define a US corporation.  How much foreign
>>ownership is allowed?  How do you plan to prevent a foreigner from
>>buying one last share?
>
>now in a prvious posting i claraified this but what i mean is new debt
>aquired 10 years after the adoptions of this program which would be quite
>small if all things work out.  however, you are correct one woudl have to
>define what is a "US corporatioon". and as for controlling who can aquire
>the debt that can be done buy the treasury department not selling it
>to those that do not qualify.  as well as enact laws which prevents others
>from reselling to non-US parties

     You still haven't answered why non-US citizens and companies shouldn't
be allowed to buy.

>>>	c> Adopt national auto emmisions standards. Goal is to have
>>>	   no emissions in 20 years, each year lowing the standard.
>>>	   Cars made before adoption of this law are exempt.
>>
>>No emissions?  Nothing does that.  Not even electricity from nukes -
>>there is still waste.  Maybe from hydro, but do we really want to dam
>>up every single river in the US?
>
>you are wrong about this. there are currently electric cars on the market
>that have no emissions. and in fact los angeles has adopted special
>auto emmision goals that are similar to the one above.
>and i mean emisions directly from cars.
>and you are making needless assumptions as to {hat will happen.
>i never mentioned anything about nuclear or hydroelectric power.

     You really can't just eliminate car emissions and sit back and
feel all warm and fuzzy about what you've accomplished.  You've still
got to *charge* those batteries, and we still produce most of our
electricity burning coal.  Running all the cars off of electricity will
immensely increase the demand on electricity.

>
>>
>>>6> Promote famly values by:
>>>	a: must show proof of counciling before marraige license
>>>	   can be obtained.
>>
>>Seems to me it isn't any of your fucking business whether I get
>>counseling or not before I get married.  And if you think my response
>>is intemperate I guarantee you will not appreciate some other peoples'
>>responses.
>
>for sure i only appreciate only rational responses. for the emotional
>ones say nothing except you feelings are hurt. however my goal here
>is to engage in rational discussion on these issues.

     While I don't exactly agree with the wording, I most certainly
agree with the attitude.  I don't even like the idea of marriage licenses.
I personally dislike the whole psychology/psychatric/counseling
profession, and want nothing to do with them.
     It is none of the government's business who I decide to marry, or
for what reasons.  I am certainly not going to appreciate the goverment
ordering me to go seek counseling on the subject at my expense.

>however already most states require proof of blood test befroe
>one can get a marraige license. also there is the interest of the state
>which here in america is also the interst of the peopel.

     Having an interest in something does not confer authority to order
people around.

>as i said in the
>platform failed marraiges and families are costly and drain resources.

     This is one of those situations where "society" has chosen to take
it upon itself to pay for something, becuase it doesn't like what happens
when it doesn't.
     That failed marriages take up "resources" (whose?) is just one of
those chances "society" is going to have to take.

>>
>>>        c: must show proof of counciling to obtain dependant tax
>>>	   deduction when filing tax forms.
>>>		-no one looses any rights. this is just to discuss
>>>		 information. that is proper diet, health care,
>>>	         responsibility and costs.

     You just have to pay more money to the government unless you decide
to go to somebody who wants to take a pry-bar to your brain.

     If the "counselor" decides you won't make a good parent, do they
get to take your child away?  What limits will the be on such a thing?
>
>>
>>>16. eliminate the death penalty in the united states
>>
>>Why?

>the death penalty serves no useful purpose. it does not
>prevent other murders it does not save us court costs.

     This is an implementation problem rather than one inherent in the
death penalty.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc