From: muaddib@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rob Dorfman)
Subject: Re: A new political platform: your comments please
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 00:48:40 GMT

In article <168541234.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>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.

i thought i had explained. the idea is to reduce foreign influence
on US fiscal policy.

>
>>>>	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.

this is obvious. my government will attack the problem one step
at a time.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>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.

ahhh but the government can do many things in the interest of the people.
in this case i think improving family life is of important enough interest
for the government to play a role. what it comes down to is balancing 
the righs of individuals vs that of the people as a whole.


>
>>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.

ahhh nothing liek assumptions.  i think i expalined clearly what the role
of the counselors are.. their role is to give out information not to 
"pry-bar" peoples brains


>
>     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?
>

i beleive i have answered this already. howeever the counselors have no
rights over anyone. they just essentialy give out information.
>
>>>
>>>>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.
>

lets assume that it is a good idea to value human life above all 
things then one cannot under that assumption have a death penalty.
(what i mean is that it is contradictory). X
6xa>========================================================================
>| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
>|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
>========================================================================


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42877 talk.abortion:34055 alt.flame:12440