Now if you were president, what realistic goals would you pursue (as in something that would actually happen folks)?
Also, would your advisors be really smart people who agree with you, or would you get a wide array of beliefs.
Personally, I would make it a mission to find the smartest man who agrees with things I believe in, and find the smartest person opposed to what I believe in. Have a “Brain trust” of sorts, but with arrogant pricks from both sides of the fence.
Now some realistic goals…
Illegalizing SUVS. IMO, though they sell well, but I think a lot of people are fed up with them. Have an huge environmental tax on any car (including SUV, but this would be used to target SUVS specificially) that doesn’t have a mininum MPG of 25, by year 2007. So if someone has the money to buy that really fast gas guzzling sportscar, or big ass hummer, than they pay the tax.
Gotta go.
My first act would be to divide Quebec into culturally/language appropriate districts, and have each vote on the question: Do you wish to remain a part of Canada? If >45% said “non” then they would be granted succession from the rest of the country, with the rest able to stay. I would finish Trudeau’s job and see a national energy program come together so that ALL Canadians could enjoy lower energy costs. I would strengthen European ties as to not be so reliant on US imports/exports. A “life sentance” would actually be a “life sentance”. Morally dicey questions would be addressed at their roots (rather than slathering legislation downstream, assess socio-political reasons and methods for preventing the questions from needing to arise in the first place). Form a council of Natives (with or without the chiefs - preferably without) to address native concerns in a way to reduce waste and corruption and increase health and education on reserves. Develop a non-American form of 2-tier health care. Not worry so much about the state of the currency as much as the economy - get as many people working as possible. Finally ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK the federal debt.
(note: some of these were in a different post - sorry for some of the regurgitation)
HFW-
Once again you wound me deeply. :wink:
I drive a 4x4 suburban that gets 12 mpg. Should we outlaw long-haul trucking? Those guys get 6 to 8 mpg. I’m paying for the gas and I pass a pollution emissions test every year, so whats the problem?
I thought you said realistic? You might as well say “I’d outlaw guns”, because you’d get my SUV just as quick as you’d get my guns. :smile:
Personally, I think if someone wants to own a car and use thrice the gas of some other, it’s their loss, but not the Government’s problem.
As president, my goal would be to change the USA from a Combustion reliant society (energy I mean) to Nuclear.
On 2002-05-06 16:22, Yanny wrote:
As president, my goal would be to change the USA from a Combustion reliant society (energy I mean) to Nuclear.
So that rather than dying slowly from conventional polution, we could die quicker from radiation poisoning/nuclear accident.
As for the tax on SUVs, why not tax M-1 Abrams? They get 1 MPG. ;P
Go read some popular science. Modern nuclear reactors are very safe; even careless operators would have to work at getting one to do any damage. I won’t bore you with those pesky details about reactors, but I assure you, since Chernobyl power companys have been very careful about who they hire to run their plants.
"I drive a 4x4 suburban that gets 12 mpg. Should we outlaw long-haul trucking? Those guys get 6 to 8 mpg. I’m paying for the gas and I pass a pollution emissions test every year, so whats the problem? "
Your car is the reason why there is too much demand for petrol, and why we all pay more.
I don’t want any petrol, just gas, unleaded and lots of it.
But, hey seriously, thanks for buying that jap car so there’s more gas for me. :wink:
On 2002-05-06 20:24, bossk wrote:
Go read some popular science.
My brother used to get popular science. I continue to read it at my school. I read that particular article.
Modern nuclear reactors are very safe;
Wrong. First, a slightly safer nuclear reactor made with pebbled uranium can still easily melt down. Also, nuclear power plants are easy terrorist targets. When the government did a series of mock terrorist raids, the terrorists were successful about 50% of the time. And then there is nuclear waste. We don’t have anywhere to send it, and even if we did, there would be accidents. Its a lose-lose situation
Modern Envirmentalists will tell you nuclear reactors are unsafe because of some accident in the 70s on Three Mile Island. That was a long time ago and it was the only accident. 2 good Nuclear reactors could produce energy about equal to Niagra falls. It’s very clean, except for a small amount of Nuclear waste. Also, we can be 100% self sufficient in electric energy.
On 2002-05-07 08:49, dezrtfish wrote:
I don’t want any petrol, just gas, unleaded and lots of it.But, hey seriously, thanks for buying that jap car so there’s more gas for me. :wink:
I got nothing against SUVs…as long as they have good gas mileage its good with me.
The truth is that we are ruining our environment, and fighting wars over oil…so lets use less.
Exactly why we should switch our electricity to nuclear…
On 2002-05-07 14:10, Yanny wrote:
Exactly why we should switch our electricity to nuclear…
If a terrorist attack turns the tri-state area into a mushroom cloud, it doesn’t really matter how much electricity we have.
a plane can’t go through 20 feet of concrete, but a nuclear bomb can!
Nuclear bombs aren’t nuclear reactors.
Simple, you set a no fly zone around the nuclear power plant. If a plane comes into that no fly zone, you shoot their ass down with Surface to Air Missles.
On 2002-05-08 14:26, Yanny wrote:
Simple, you set a no fly zone around the nuclear power plant. If a plane comes into that no fly zone, you shoot their ass down with Surface to Air Missles.
Terrorists don’t require an airplane, just a small team with something like 50% chance according to recent exercises by the gov.
I suppose a similarly equiped small team of terrorists with the correct technical knowledge could take out all the dams on the Columbia River, destroying a fair percentage of the pacific’s power supply and most everything downstream.
I’m not like them, but I can pretend.
The sun is gone, but I have light.
The day is done, but I’m having fun.
I think I’m dumb, or maybe just happy.
~Dumb, Nirvana
[ This Message was edited by: bossk on 2002-05-09 20:58 ]
Well, secuirity is another matter. With some of the money you save by implimenting nuclear power, you invest in security.
Ever think 50 years from now we could see nucler power extended to cars?
Yanny, I did a report for school on Nuclear Power (sucked) and I believed that we should switch to nuclear power before I did research. First of all, there are the costs of building a nuclear power plant. Second of all, there is a problem with waste disposal. I agree that Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were accidents, but accidents happen all the time. The World Health Organization estimated that the Chernobyl accident released 200 times more radioactivity than was released by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In conclusion, nuclear power has warped nation economics and energy sectors, created disincentives for research and investment into more environmentally benign energy forms, and created a legacy of radioactive waste for which there is currently no acceptable technical or political solution. A new energy deal to meet the legitimate energy needs of many countries should replace the outdated and dangerous promotion of nuclear technology with large-scale promotion of renewables and energy efficient technologies.
How many people do you think die a year as a result of pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels? Or the oil wars we’ve fought for so long?
