Just sayin’ what would happen if they got everything they wanted. I’m quite grateful that my list would never be implemented and is seen as silly but I bet deep in the heart of hearts many conservatives would welcome most of them.
How about if it also lifted, say 1 million people out of poverty? And crime was dramatically reduced? Would either of them change your calculation? Both?
:rolleyes:
Smile if you wish but I’d be interested in a list of what you or other conservatives would like if you had no restrictions- don’t worry about getting any Democratic or liberal support, if Santa Claus came up to you and said, hey Magellan, you can have everything you want just give me a list, what would be on it?
nm
- Flat or Fair Tax, which also allows us to shrink the IRS to a fraction of its current size
- Voucher Schools
- Abolishment of Minimum Wage
- Reduce corporate tax rate to be more competitive with the rest of the world
- Make every state a right to work state
- Immigration Reform that is flexible and benefits the U.S. needs at any point in time
- Secure Borders
- Go after the executives whose companies employee illegal immigrants—hard
- Elimination of things like in-state tuition, local voting, drivers licenses, that reward illegal immigrants. Have a policy that encourages self-deportation.
- Visiting Worker Program (akin to Canada’s)
- Like the rest of the world, grant citizenship only to those children of legal citizens
- Make English the Official Language
- Take steps to ensure that the spirit of the electoral college is protected
- Official recognition that the U.S. was founded on Judeo-Chritian principles (even though I practice no religion)
- Pass a law making it illegal for a congressperson to vote for or against a bill without reading it in its entirety. If they haven’t read it, they don’t get to vote. If they do, and are later found to have lied about it, they lose their seat.
- Pass law granting same-sex federal workers who have entered into a Civil Union all the same benefits and privileges enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts
- Repeal the ACA on the grounds that the mandate is not a tax
- Reform healthcare starting with the simplest things first: tort reform, interstate sales, outlaw recision, etc. Add more as needed.
That’s a start.
Thanks for the list, Magellan. Although I disagree with most if not all of the things on your list, I appreciate your candor.
I do have one nitpick, in most of the Western Hemisphere citizenship is determined by where you are born.
What “tort reform”, specifically, would you pass?
This probably deserves its own thread (and I’m pretty sure it’s had many!), but I’m calling this out as complete bullshit. For one thing, the phrase “Judeo-Christian”, especially in this application, is the purest kind of pretend-PC catnip crap. For another, many of the Founding Fathers were not Christian, and none of them were “Judeo”. John Adams believed (and wrote) that the government of the United States was “in no way founded on the Christian religion”. The Constitution does not mention god in any sense, and explicitly mandates that the most important of the Ten Commandments may be violated without sanction. The Declaration of Independence mentions a Creator, but this is hardly a uniquely Judeo-Christian idea.
No, in no way was America founded on “Judeo-Christian” principles, whatever they are.
To cover a few of Magellan’s:
I disagree that a flat tax is a fair tax. Most industrial nations have graduated tax rates, which I think is more fair.
I’d have more sympathy with this view if so many major corporations didn’t pay zero taxes.
Countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Belgium get by fine with multiple languages. I suspect the US can as well.
I actually agree with this.
Seems completely unenforceable. Plus, their staffs should be able to provide a Cliff Notes version of the bills.
Still, I’d love to see other conservatives’ wish lists.
Ah, this old sleight of hand again. It’s one thing to say that some of the Founding Fathers were not practicing Christians, it is quite another to say that their belief system did not sprout for Christian teachings. The most famous Deist, Jefferson, believed in the teachings and philosophy of Jesus. His problem, like other Deists, was with miracles, the trinity, etc. He even had his own Christian bindle from which he excised what I noted.
I’m glad you realize that the founding document is the Declaration of Independence. It outlines the philosophical underpinnings of the country. The Constitution, the set of bylaws by which the philosophy was to be pursued, but offered no philosophy itself, did have on it “In the year of our Lord”. I somehow rout it was a reference to Shiva.
The declaration by Adams must be taken with a grain of salt. I actually think it was a bit of military practicality and, dar I say, cowardice. At the time, we had little we could do to combat the Barbary Pirates.
The absolute nature of your last line indicates that you want to be right about this more than you are right about this.
What do you mean by this?
Out of curiosity—in real life, I’m the child of one US citizen (dad) and one illegal alien (mom). Would I still get to be a citizen?
As to the subject of the thread, I agree about the return of Dickensian workhouses. I think we are actually seeing something like this in the prisons. I don’t think we would return to the over-the-top abuses of the 19th century, though, but a more regulated system of workhouses.
I’m not a lawyer and no that this can get complicated, but I’d try to control/limit outlandish judgements. Getting compensated should mean someone is entitled to a windfall the size of a big lottery award.
I’d vote “yes”. But I’d still deport your mom if she found her way into the system.
Many of them were not Christians in any sense. And many rejected Christian teachings.
Right – Deist, not Christian.
So, basically, Jefferson had problems with Christianity and Bible. But he believed in and liked Jesus (as do Muslims), so Christian! Sure, I’m sure we could come up with a definition of Christianity (and include the word AMERICA in all caps in it) that would make the USA a “Christian-founded” country, but that’s not the common sense of the word, and was even less so in the 18th century.
No (it’s one of them), not that it matters.
That was a reference to the way dates were referred to back then. And considering that the Constitution explicitly says that the most important law from the Bible and the Ten Commandments does not apply to the new country, and everyone is free to violate it, as well as the fact that nothing from the Declaration or the Constitution is uniquely Christian (much less “Judeo!”) I think there’s little reason to believe that either document has any more basis in Christianity than it does in Greek philosophy or pre-Christian Roman liturgy.
How convenient that you handwave away pretty much the only Founding Father to say something that explicitly answers the question ‘was the USA founded on the Christian religion’.
Basic reading comprehension – a reiteration of the main thrust of an argument at the end is quite common, and useful for reinforcing the main idea.
And by the way, what does any of this have to do with “Judeo”? What is “Judeo” about the founding of the USA?
So people would like to abandon the electoral college and have the President elected by pure popular vote. There is a move afoot in some states right now to make this a defect reality. New York, for instance either passed or is trying to pass a bill that would dictate that all electoral votes would be awarded to that candidate who won the national popular vote.
So Hong Kong doesn’t count because it is a huge city and Utah doesn’t count because it is suburban and rural? I played you jig and you wouldn’t dance, I played you a dirge and you wouldn’t cry.
1 or 2% extra growth a year doesn’t sound like much but that is compounding. If the US had 1% per year less growth over the last hundred years it would have the same median income level as Mexico.
What personal freedoms would you have to give up to live in Utah? Having to work an extra half day per week to pay your taxes means you are giving up personal freedom
That’s pretty rare. (although god knows I try)
Thanks. I think I’m with you on this one, but don’t have strong feelings about it.