Your plan for America?

[Tlaceceyaya]

However, evolution is not a scientific theory. Natural selection is.
By your own definition, natural selection can be used for predicting what can happen. Therefore, theory. Evolution, however, is observation.

Negative, and here is why: Natural selection is merely a component of the Theory of Evolution. There are other driving factors in evolution such as mutations in DNA and genetic drift. Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which is the closest thing science allows to get to 'Law'. Facts only pertain to real and observed bits of data which are employed as evidence to support the overarching theory.

Example Fact: A certain bird has a beak meant for eating seeds. Even a creationist would have a hard time debating this point while observing said bird eating seeds.

Example Fact: Read this, as evolution is observed in those tests as gravity is observed when you throw a brick straight up.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Negative, and here is why: Natural selection is merely a component of the Theory of Evolution. There are other driving factors in evolution such as mutations in DNA and genetic drift. Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which is the closest thing science allows to get to 'Law'. Facts only pertain to real and observed bits of data which are employed as evidence to support the overarching theory.

Example Fact: A certain bird has a beak meant for eating seeds. Even a creationist would have a hard time debating this point while observing said bird eating seeds.

Example Fact: Read this, as evolution is observed in those tests as gravity is observed when you throw a brick straight up.

Except just because it can be proven through experimentation doesn't mean it is a law. Case and point Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. From Wikipedia.

[Imsogone]

1. Repeal all unnecessary government regulation in the economy.
2. Deport all illegal immigrants. (I support legal immigrants but NOT illegals)
3. Illegalize same-sex marriage and civil unions nationwide.
4. Increase security on both borders by hiring more border patrol agents and periodically stationing Army personnel at the borders.
5. Establish English as the official language.
6. Withdraw from the failed United Nations.
7. Give Iran and North Korea an ultimatum. Either get rid of their nuclear programs or we will declare war.
8. Require that the Intelligent Design theory be taught along side the theory of Evolution.
9. Repeal all these hate speech laws that violate the ideal of free speech.
10. Illegalize pornography.

1. I agree about unnecessary regulation, where we may not agree is in what we consider to be unnecessary.
2. Agree, but make the procedure for entering the country easier.
3 Remove religion from marriage and make it a personal choice, I really don't care who marries whom as long as the resulting family unit is stable
4. Maybe, I'd have to research the implications more.
5. Ok
6. Ok, and raise the rent on the UN buildings
7. NO
8. NO, NO, and NO - intelligent design belongs in religion classes not in science classes - and there mostly as a demonstration of bad logic.
9. First define free speech. Are we free to injure people in our speech? Use speech to bully people? Too many questions to make this a blanket thing.
10. While I find porn to be repetitive and boring, it comes under free speech and freedom of expression - what kind of double standard are you trying to impose here?

[Jamelwan]

Let it burn out then bomb it

[Tlaceceyaya]

Example Fact: Read this, as evolution is observed in those tests as gravity is observed when you throw a brick straight up.

Except just because it can be proven through experimentation doesn't mean it is a law. Case and point Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. From Wikipedia.

Also from Wikipedia: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Does not conflict at all with the wikipedia page for scientific laws.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Except just because it can be proven through experimentation doesn't mean it is a law. Case and point Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields.

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. From Wikipedia.

Also from Wikipedia: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Does not conflict at all with the wikipedia page for scientific laws.

Evolution posits a mechanism.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Also from Wikipedia: Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

Does not conflict at all with the wikipedia page for scientific laws.

Evolution posits a mechanism.

Evolution by Natural selection posits a mechanism. Evolution is an observation of the effects. Read the bolded. No positing of mechanisms.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

This aint an evolution thread BTW.

[Sungai Pusat]

Note: I'll bracket those at which I got the idea from to a degree.

Phasing out programmes like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, making good on current promises for them while slowly denying them for the future retirees, (Paul Ryan) along with an elimination of the payroll tax or at least a sharp decrease of it, replacing it either with a government retirement fund, by choice of course, in which you place maybe 20% of your paycheck in while the government invests it into companies or investment stocks of your choice or simply eliminating it completely, cutting the 'defence' spending by about half, reducing taxes like income across the board, possibly the most for those least taxed but still taxed by it, also possibly giving something like a negative income tax as a replacement for the welfare system (Milton Friedman), socially allowing systematic, across the nation legalisation of anything but murder, theft, rape and the likes. And the international policy would be non-interventionist in itself, only attacking when USA actually receives a physical threat. At any rate, these are most likely things I'd do first as an economic plan.

Then, there are others like decreasing regulation, examining the various boards set up in the government, so on and so forth. The above would probably be the first-things-first ideal, though.

This all from a Singaporean who spends too much time on US politics.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Shrink the defence budget, the foreign aid budget (only to countries like Israel) and withdraw from other countries. Develop the renewables more, as America's dependence on oil will simply push it into more and more expensive wars with the Middle East until there is none left and it collapses.
Break up larger businesses with monopolies and sell them to worthwhile people (not sure how to define worthwhile though).
Reduce manufacturing tax (or whatever it's called) to encourage businesses to build in the USA and not China.
Nationalise healthcare. This will mean people will have a larger disposable income to spend, increasing growth in the sevice sector ie shops.
Tax the rich more and the poor less.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Shrink the defence budget,

Why? So North Korea and Iran can get a better shot at us?

the foreign aid budget (only to countries like Israel)

I agree, but why specifically Israel? You want the Arabs to steal their land from them?

and withdraw from other countries.

Agreed.

Develop the renewables more, as America's dependence on oil will simply push it into more and more expensive wars with the Middle East until there is none left and it collapses.

Which is why we need to drill in America. Renewable fuel isn't worth it when we have plenty of oil left in the world.

Break up larger businesses with monopolies and sell them to worthwhile people (not sure how to define worthwhile though).

Then you couldn't do it.

Reduce manufacturing tax (or whatever it's called) to encourage businesses to build in the USA and not China.

Agreed.

Nationalise healthcare. This will mean people will have a larger disposable income to spend, increasing growth in the sevice sector ie shops.

But not in Obamacare style, I suppose? You won't fine people for not buying healthcare?

Tax the rich more and the poor less.

[/quote]
To remove the riches' incentive to work, and produce?

[Tlaceceyaya]

To remove the riches' incentive to work, and produce?

Work meaning... give themselves massive raises and increase the gap between CEO and worker pay?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

To remove the riches' incentive to work, and produce?

Work meaning... give themselves massive raises and increase the gap between CEO and worker pay?

Wow, you replied quickly.

[Vaklor]

Why? So North Korea and Iran can get a better shot at us?

North Korea? North Korea?! North Korea is in no shape to even do proxy wars against the U.S., Iran probably couldn't fight a full-scale war either.

I agree, but why specifically Israel? You want the Arabs to steal their land from them?

Israel is stolen land from the Arabs to begin with, so it'd be more like giving it back.

Which is why we need to drill in America. Renewable fuel isn't worth it when we have plenty of oil left in the world.

No, we don't have plenty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

[The ancient Kingdom of Putacaia]

America is a weak nation. Plain and simple.

[Socialdemokraterne]

America is a weak nation. Plain and simple.

That's not a plan. That's not even a well-developed criticism. It's just shrugging and saying "Meh, America is weak." There's nothing plain about that, though your argument's simplicity I can't deny.

[Arumdaum]

Shrink the defence budget,

Why? So North Korea and Iran can get a better shot at us?

Pffffffffft. Hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha.

Oh my god haha.. you actually think North Korea or Iran would attack us....

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Shrink the defence budget,

Why? So North Korea and Iran can get a better shot at us?

North Korea would literally run out of fuel for their armies in a week after declaring war on South Korea. The contingency plan many people believe DPRK has for invading the south hinges on capturing South Korean fuel supplies. Also 90% of their equipment is three times as old as the soldiers using it.

As for Iran, Saudi Arabia could beat them in a war with ease. The Iraq we beat with only about 200 dead in the first Gulf War was far superior to the Iranian Army, which only survived the Iran-Iraq War due to having more manpower. Since then Iran hasn't exactly been improving.

Honestly the only nations that are a remote threat to us are China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and maybe Israel, and only Pakistan is dumb enough to try anything, and they have a pretty shitty track record as far as wars go, being 0-4 against India since gaining independence.

America is a weak nation. Plain and simple.

LOL

[Norstal]

Shrink the defence budget,

Why? So North Korea and Iran can get a better shot at us?

A better argument would be that the defense budget are mostly spent on technology and scientific advancements than to defend us from any specific threat.

[Stovokor]

My solution, turn America into a warrior culture, culling the masses that are unable to get with the program or unwilling, then build many bunkers deep massive bunkers and stock on on supplies and try to make them self sufficient, and ZEN BURN ZE VORLD. And this would be a typical afternoon.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Undermine their military power, by infiltrating their military supply chain, making sure that all their equipment is riddled with fake Chinese electronic components.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Why? So North Korea and Iran can get a better shot at us?

A better argument would be that the defense budget are mostly spent on technology and scientific advancements than to defend us from any specific threat.

This mainly, military technology helps a lot in the field of developing communications technology, stuff like GPS, not to mention things that have no immediate direct impact on civilian life.

[Divair]

America is a weak nation. Plain and simple.

This is a plan?..

[Prussia-Steinbach]

America is a weak nation. Plain and simple.

Weak nation... Yeah...







Weak... Yeah...

[Genivaria]

Why? So North Korea and Iran can get a better shot at us?

Pffffffffft. Hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha.

Oh my god haha.. you actually think North Korea or Iran would attack us....

Or COULD attack us.