So I just got done ranting about FESS in my last post, now it's time to rant about people in the FESS! Woot! Just a quick note to Superbus: this is aerfall232. You probably have no clue who I am, so I'll put in a brief intro here: Hi. I post a lot in the CD. I searched for FESS in the interest tag, read your posts, and decided to reply to this one. Right, now onto the issue at hand...

Just a quick note, the italics are things written by Superbus.

I had an epithany. And people have different reactions when I say this. Some people, like Sam, ignore me, likely running for their lives at the thought of me thinking too much. Others dismiss me, like Ed, who said "will I be able to prod hobos?". A few were interested, like Sara Jaye, Samu and M.A.N. As well they should be! It's a brilliant, yet gutsy, plan!

I'm going to start my own political party.

Woot, so am I. It's called Revolutionist; the problem, however, is that it's closer to Communism than it is Democracy, so my chances for any success would probably involve creating a new country; not something a poor little barely-14 year old could handle.

See, I'm a Libertarian. But in reality, my economic policies are too far left. I believe in socialized health care, I believe in controlling corporations, I believe in higher taxes... let's face it, "Everyone for themselves" doesn't work when we have virtually no middle class anymore. And everyone is extreme now; Democrats are strictly liberal, Republicans are strictly various levels of conservative (though the Neo-Cons run the show), and everyone else is one varying extreme or another.

No one uses common sense anymore.

This is exactly what I'm into. The people off at Washington are so wrapped up in politics they're scared of using common sense because all their Republican or Democrat buddies might not support their election anymore. EGAD!

The fact is that democracy in America is mostly just a game of "Which rich white person is going to lead us next? Place your bets!" Hell, as a people, we're not even allowed to VOTE anymore. Sure, we can if we want to vote, just, you know, for kicks, but everything really comes down to the Electoral College. The problem is that having a bunch of people saying, "I'll vote what my state wants." won't get you far because a lot of people simply won't. This system is corrupt, and must be abolished. We could eliminate this entirely in two ways, a Direct system or a Points system. The direct system is simply directly tallying who gets the most votes from the people, and that's it. That's what I recommend; however, we could just refine the Electoral College through the Points system. This is where if a candidate wins the state of California, per se, he gets one point. If the other person wins, say, Montana, then he gets one point too. The victor gets the most points; in the case of a twenty-five-twenty-five tie, it would be up to Congress. The Electoral College was good back in the 1700s when steam ships were "devil magicks" and that you were lucky to get a letter to someone in a five-day timespan. Nowadays we have the technology for a public vote. Let's use it.

Further, the system of today is, like you said, just too far removed from common sense. As just a normal person, it's easy to say, "Well, do this or that, it makes sense." But the problem is that, in the end, we're just normal people. The people in Washington are so far removed from the people that it's hard to feel like your involved anymore. Elections these days are more of a "Choose which of the following people matches the most with your goals.", even though, like stated above, it's not like it matters what you vote anyway. Think about both impeachments in America's history: Andrew Johnson was impeached by radicalist Republicans because they thought his plan of Reformation was sympathizing too much with the south. Now the key word here is "Radicalist Republican", in that they were a small group of people that barely reflected the majority of the country. The fact that they could get rid of a President by themselves really destroys the point of democracy. The other one was Bill Clinton. The guy did some chick in his office one day. Mmkay, so he's a complete bastard. But he still was a pretty good president, and the political parties impeaching him were mostly just people who saw a chance to get rid of the current president and hopefully get their own election by sympathizing with the Christian majority. The only justified impeachment, that of Richard Nixon, never occurred because the guy resigned and ran like hell.

Enough ranting by me, though. This is just the "Revolutionist" in me that hates our current system of democracy.

And that's when it hit me. I was talking to my mother over email on Monday while at work, and predicted the paranoia and hyperbole that would result from the VT shootings way too easily (the Thompson interview did the trick). I stated that we don't have any common sense, and she retorted with "Well, you should start your own party!", since she thinks I'm not "extreme" enough to be a Lib (she calls them "right wing nut jobs").

... And that's what I'm thinking of doing. I'm going to call it the Sensetarian Party. What is "Sensetarian"? The belief of common sense in politics. We over think things in this country; it's ridiculous, we spend so much time talking about shit that nothing truly gets done, and when something's about to get done, some asshole tries to sneak in some unrelated legislation, and it either goes through with no one noticing, or gets defeated because of it. I think we'd be a lot better if we stopped caring about the fringes of society, and started taking a common sense approach to things.

Now here's where things get sticky: I actually came up with a platform for this. Definitive stances that my party would take. If you want to classify it, it's... conservaliberal. Very moderate; I take stances on both sides. You know... common sense.

True words look so nice in text.

Here is my platform:

ABORTION: Fully legal from weeks 1-20. Most medical facts that I personally have seen have stated that a foetus isn't really a living organism until the third trimester; this gives enough time to know that you're pregnant and make a decision.

Well, you're still denying a child life. Everyone has a right to live even if they aren't truly alive yet. If I had been aborted, you wouldn't see this long post, I wouldn't be typing, I'd have missed out on life. That's not something I want, and it's not something you should endorse. If you don't want a child, then don't fuck people. As for rapist children...honestly, I don't think the child should pay for the bad ethics of his father.

However, those are just my personal views, which, I have learned, should probably stay out of politics. I would allow abortion, as much as I hate myself for it. If your pro-life, then don't HAVE an abortion. But people have a right to make their own choices. I don't like the idea of people having abortions, yet that's my personal belief and people have their own personal beliefs, and I'm not going to infringe on that.

Furthermore, I'd enforce a mandatory 10 days between going to a clinic and saying "I want an abortion" and getting the abortion; no more, no less. This is for two reasons: one, this is to prevent a woman gettind delayed by pro-life plants who either scare them shitless or blow them off until third trimester. Secondly, it means the woman has to really think about it before she goes in; once you're in, if you back out, you're not ready for an abortion.

I agree here. A lot of people have abortions and then feel sick about it three days later. However, I would allow rescheduling of abortions, just in case your entire family was driving on a summer trip when the car exploded and your house burned down and now your sick with leprosy or the like. A family emergency would be an excuse for rescheduling, but you must have a very good reason to reschedule, just so you avoid the whole, "Oh, I should reschedule and think about this some more..." stuff. And I'd put a limit on reschedules; two sounds like a good number.

"But Chris! What about people that just use it as birth control?" Yeah, what about them? Let 'em in. Let them do it. Why? Well, let's see... is it better to abort a foetus before you give birth to it, or do you give birth to an unwanted child, risk it being ignored, abused, put into the DCF cycle, etc. for 18 years, and then after that, pray that he's not a career criminal once he grows up fucked up?

Well, there are a lot of people wanting to adopt a child. You can't handle them? Send them off to some parent elsewhere who wants to have the child they never could. At least the child isn't dead. But then again, this is all personal opinions here.

I'll take my chances on the former. Furthermore, we have Bob Barker telling us "control the pet population" by getting them spayed and neutered, and if that doesn't work, we put puppies and kitty-witties down to "sleep"... yet we can't do that to UNBORN children? Maybe we'd be better off if we said we were putting foetuses to sleep...

First off, comparing human children to animals isn't a good mediphor. To follow on that note, why not spay or neuter children? Pets have a lower standard...some people don't want puppies, so they spay or neuter their pets. But humans are a higher species than animals; we have intelligent thought, we have emotions, our own opinions, etc. The child should be given the choice, not the parent, or else you have things like the children of Japan binding their feet because their parents drill the idea into them and force them to do it.

However, the problem with this whole thing is that a child can't speak for himself. And that's where we get the dangerous idea that they aren't human. Still, once again, personal opinions don't belong in government. I would allow abortion, yet I still hate it to no end? Why? Because personal matters like that should stay personal matters.

My mother feels that abortions should be covered by welfare.

I agree. Poor people should have the same rights as middle-class and rich people. If someone is earning some government defined number or below, they can get welfare covered abortions, simply because they couldn't pay for them. Otherwise, pay for them yourself.

I don't agree, because I don't agree with the welfare system as it is, though I would make it necessary for health insurance to cover it for health purposes (her life is in danger).

Only if the situation defines that as above; if they're poor, go for it. If they're rich enough to pay for it, then pay for it.

But the fact of the matter is that abortion is not the moral sewer that people think it is, and so far, the only reason I'm seeing to ban abortion is a bunch of Brits singing "Every Sperm is Sacred". That's not gonna cut it, especially since that's based on religion. More on THAT dagwood later.

Again, as I said, these are all personal beliefs. Abortion should NOT be banned. If you don't believe in it, don't have one.

DRUG POLICY: Marijuana would become a fully legal drug. Don't tell me it's worse than alcohol or nicotine; marijuana is not addictive by design. The reason why beer and nicotine are legal are because they have better lobbying arms; nothing more, nothing less. Marijuana has medicinal uses, and when used in moderation, can be a relaxing drug much in the vein of alcohol.

No; Marijuana is dangerous. Plus the drug cartels would jump on the quickest flight here and start addicting people. Teens these days (including myself) are idiots. "zomg Mrs. Popular does it, I will too!" will get you a bunch of addicted teens that ruin their lives off the stuff. Marijuana is too easily addictable, and something like that shouldn't be around. The only reason cigarettes are allowed is because they're too many powerful interests supporting it. What I'd do is just monitor the amounts of nicotine (i.e., your regular cigarette is now a light) to the point where it isn't that addictive. Alcohol is fine; I would impose a limit to how many drinks you can have in a day, etc, just so you lower the damages of addiction.

With that, I would give Marijuana a sin tax equal to that which alcohol and cigarettes already get. You want to grow it? Be my guest.

No, as I said above, keep Marijuana out. Sin taxes will be cut; slapping someone in the face because of addiction isn't going to do anything. And with lower nicotine rates, that means lower addiction rates.

Furthermore, the ability to use drugs does not give you the right to be an asshole. For one, marijuana gives a contact high when smoked; smoke it in your house. Furthermore, if you've committed a crime under the influence of a drug? You're going to jail; we'll work on the time later, but my first instinct says a MINIMUM of eighteen months. If that's what it takes to teach moderation to this country...

What I would do is give them the normal sentence. Just because they were so jacked up on something they couldn't tell left from right doesn't mean that a sentence should be harsh. Rather, give them the sentence, send them off to rehab, and put them on a blacklist that bans them from cigarette/alcohol use. Problem solved.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Everyone talks about what WE can do to stem this problem of Mexicans consistently trying our border. I have the perfect solution: put the onus on Mexico. Tell Mexico "OK, assholes... you have no self-solvent economy, your only exports are drugs, and you're generally a lawless nation that people try to escape to survive... we will help you get your economy off the ground, but only IF you stem the amount of people going over our border. If X amount of people come over in a period of X months, or more, then you will see harsh economic sanctions. Handle your business." Notice: Canada and America don't have problems with each other in terms of illegal immigrants. Why? Because we both have solvent economies.

True; eliminate the problem at the source. Still, I'd put up a wall; why even let the temptation to cross it illegally exist?

NON-VIOLENT CRIMINALS: I fail to see how we can "rehabilitate" someone in an environment where it's fairly assumed that you're going to get anally raped.

Simple solution: spend more money on cleaning up prisons. If prisons are cleaner, then you're not going to have to worry about the age-old problem of bending over to get the soap.

Rape is the #1 dehumanizing thing you can do to someone,

Agreed.

yet it's generally accepted that you're going to get butt-fucked in jail, might as well enjoy the ride, Jean Genet.

Like I said; instead of just complaining about problems...fix them.

While I generally don't care what happens to truly evil criminals, we stick too many non-violent criminals in jail just because it's what we do.

I must disagree with you here on a firm note. Someone committing a crime that's truely terrible does not negate their rights as human beings. On one hand, yes, you're going to jail, yes, you're getting the death penalty, but we still have to treat them as humans while they're on death row. This is not a fascist society; everyone has rights, and you must observe them, or you're going to have a lot of Guantanamo Bays happening when you're not looking. Why? Because the jailers wouldn't believe these people are human. Why NOT take pictures of them doing each other? If you put human rights to the side, your only breeding the worst in people.

</i>That's wrong. Drug users being rehabilitated in jail? Doesn't happen. "If I went to jail, I wouldn't come out of jail rehabilitated, I'd come out wanting to mainline heroin into my eyeballs" (Bill Hicks). It's apropos.</i>

Like I said; don't just move around the problem, fix them. Drug users should go to Rehab, where they belong. If they screwed up in life, let them go to jail once they're done at Rehab and serve their time. And since prisons are cleaner, you'll have less people smuggling in whatever thing they can that can even remotely resemble a high.

So from now on? We don't stick non-violent criminals in jail until it's ABSOLUTELY necessary. They commit a crime? Depending on the level of the crime, increase the penalty; they're going to counselling, and paying a fine, and the counselling is at their expense. They don't have that money? Fine, they can work it off with community service. They don't want to do community service? Congrats, you're now on house arrest, THEN you're still doing community service. After that? THEN you can go to jail. I'd only recommend jail for MASSIVE white-collar crime; the kind of crime that ruins lives (Enron, Adelphia).

Bad bad bad bad bad idea. Jail is there for a reason. You fuck up, go to jail, learn your lesson, then live happily ever after. If it's just, "Oh, pay up, you're free.", then really, what's stopping them? They still live the lives they did, they still do what they used to, except if they get caught, oh no, looks like they'll be cleaning up Mrs. Thomas's yard. Jail is punishment; if you let non-violent crime go, you're not punishing them. Punish the crime differently, yes, but with the difference being jail sentence. Criminals should go to jail, period. Otherwise they’re not going to pay the price for their transgressions.

And going to jail would likely be a LOT tougher, because it would be filled with people that commit [violent crime]...

Fix the problems in the jails. If you spend more money on jails then you have less people waiting for you to undress in the shower. Besides, people that do get caught doing that kind of thing...solitary confinement, anyone? If you can't handle being with others, than you're not going to have that privilege.

VIOLENT CRIME: From now on, if you commit a violent crime, you're officially a felon. And I don't mean a violent crime like two guys beating the shit out of each other at a bar over the Yankees vs. the Red Sox. Everything from a mugging on up, you're now a felon, and you're going to jail for a minimum of two years (and none of my jail plans involve parole, either). Second offence? Now we're up to five years. If you can't learn by the third time, then you're too stupid to live among the rest of us. You're going to jail for life.

So if you go around and burn everyone in your neighborhood alive, you'll be treated the same as someone who thought that lady's purse would look nice in his house? Treat crimes individually. If I commit something, I should get a specific judgment based on what I've done wrong, not some generic, "You fuck up, we fuck you up." thing.

There is one exception to this: spousal abuse. This is not to say that I think hitting spouses/girlfriends is acceptable; on the contrary, I can't think about so much as TICKLING my girlfriend excessively without having the need to vomit. But there's other factors that go into this, and the abused spouse might want to keep the other parent/other source of income around to keep the family together. Therefore, the first chance, it's up to the spouse in question. Second time? We're taking it out of her hands. If he/she chooses to keep the spouse around, they're going into counselling for over a year.

The problem is that so many women are scared into submission. That's what's dangerous about abuse; you can't live without them, you don't want them angry, you know they're good on the inside and you can change them, etc. The woman's going to be on such an emotional ride she's not going to make a rational decision and the problems will continue. Should be solved by the government initially. Give the women welfare and all that good stuff. But the guy's a wife-beater and is going to be treated like the scum he is, despite what hateful things of "you can't fix yourself without me" he's drilled into her.

That said, "hate crimes" would no longer exist. Why, you ask? I mean, isn't beating someone because of their race, sexuality or what not hateful? Yes, it is. But is it less "hateful" than beating someone for any other reason? A mugging is done with hate. And why does this only affect minorities? A white man going through Compton doesn't have a long life expectancy mainly because he's white. That sounds to me like the definition of a "hate" crime, no? The reality is that any violent crime is hate-based, and for our minority groups to have true equality, we need to stop both hindering them and pampering them both. Punish all these crimes equally... and punish them HARSHLY.

I agree on every point except the last four words. I don't give a shit if a KKK member shoots some black guy. He's going to jail for murder, no charges added or dropped because of the context. The whole "Oh, look, white man stabbed an asian? WTF HATE CRIME!" mentality doesn't work. Treat the crimes, not the context.

GUN CONTROL: America was founded with the ideal that Americans could arm themselves to defend themselves; yes, the ideal that Americans can fight back against their government is as outdated as the musket (I own a GLOCK, the government owns really big bombs... who's gonna win?), but the fact of the matter is that not every gun owner in America is an illegal criminal. So therefore, I believe we have effective gun laws as it is. They just need to be enforced. It's short-sighted to think that just forbidding guns is going to prevent everyone from getting them; only the outlaws will truly have guns in that case.

The problem is that you have Stupid Idiot #453 being tricked into getting some kids ammo so they can pull Columbine Clone #22. You can't track down where the ammo goes without a serious invasion of privacy, you can't just stop someone from buying something because you suspect they're giving it to others, all that good stuff. What's the solution? The government will grant you licenses for a gun only if you qualify to psychiatrist's tests, IQ, all that fun stuff. Frankly, don't keep guns from the people. Keep them from the stupid.

Europe has very strict gun laws, but they're not immune anymore; they're starting to get more firearm murders now, thanks to the black market. In THIS country? Forget it.

You'll never get rid of the black market. Anytime something's illegal, it's going to get in the country somehow. However, you can limit it severely through the right measures. All black market dealers will be given heavy penalties, regardless if the people who got the illegal weapons used them. Just because they didn't do anything wrong with them doesn't mean that they couldn't have. If someone gives me a gun in good faith, that's good and all, but there's no way they can know that I won't just go next door and go on a massacre. So you should punish all found in these illegal rings, and punish them harshly.

Sorry, but a people that can't defend themselves will get trampled. And the answer isn't just "more police", because we don't want a Police State; give up that liberty, and it's a slick slope. And if it's someone with a gun vs. a bunch without? Well... you get Virginia Tech.

The thing is not arming every kid who walks into a school. It's about keeping the guns out. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are unique nutjobs because they worked hard to get their perfect plan into place. I know this; I've studied Columbine to the point where I could tell you the entire timeline by heart. Luckily, they were terrible bomb makers and they could only use as much ammo as they had. Now if you give those to the kids? Well you just cut the work out and let kids go off whenever they feel like it. The reason school shootings are rare are because they're so hard to pull off. If you cut the work, then, you know, emo suicidal idiots who think life is worthless...what's stopping them?

Just making things illegal isn't going to work; look what it did for drugs, and alcohol in the Prohibition era. So if some asshole criminal busts into a man's house with an illegally bought gun, I want that man to be able to defend himself and his family. Otherwise? They're all dead. And gun regulations are now officially useless.

Yes, which is why banning guns outright isn't the solution. You just have to make sure, with psychiatry tests and the like, that the people getting them aren't insane. Have annual psychiatry tests, too, just in case the person has cracked in the time since they got the license.

HOWEVER! Just owning an illegal gun would make you a felon, carrying a five year prison sentence, minimum. Second one after that? 15. Then, you're going away... but at that point, you've lost 20 years, so at that point, you're ready to die anyway.

Yes. But I'd put the prices higher, just so people realize the serious shit they're getting themselves into if they so much as see an illegal gun and not report it. First offense? Twenty years. Second? Goodnight.

And if you shoot anyone in anything other than self defence, with ANY gun? Minimum 15 years. Kill someone? Without DNA proof, you're going away for life. With? You're going to die... and with a heavily streamlined appeals process, it won't take long.

I agree, but I'd add in parole to all that can pass psychiatry tests. Just because you fucked up once doesn't mean that you have to lose your entire life for it; you'll still ruined for the rest of your life, but you still get to live.

I'd use the Death Penalty for two cases. The first one was above. The second, I'll get into below...

The death penalty...I would relegate it to murder only. The rest can get life.

SEX CRIMES/AGE OF CONSENT: I put the two together, even though "Age of consent" isn't just the age you can fuck at.

First off, let's define what the age of consent is. It's simple: Sex, drinking, smoking, you name it... you can do it all at sixteen years old. Across the board.

Seems a little bit low? That's OK, because you're still under your parents' control until 18, unless you're emancipated. This way, you can learn to HANDLE drugs/alcohol/whatever while under their control. If that's too much for people to handle, then compromise: you can drink at 16, but wherever you are, you have to STAY (so you'd better be drinking at a house, supervised). That's more or less how it is today unofficially (my first drink was at 15, with Dad), but that would make it official.

That means kids can have sex at 16, with no consequences, across the board. Technically, it would allow someone my age - 27 in a month - to have sex with a 16 year old. After that? You do need a tier system, due to the dynamics of high school. Here's how that would work (since people asked):

- Over 16, under 18, have sex with someone under 16: No crime. Let the parents handle the situation.

- Over 18, have sex with someone 14-15: Misdemeanour, and you're open for a lawsuit should the parents want to.

Well said. No problems here. Now to move on to the problem I do have...

- Over 18, have sex with someone 13 or under: You are officially a paedophile. And you're going to be executed.

NO. Paedophilia is a disgusting, hateful crime, and is one of the worst things human kind has done. But the death penalty is too harsh. Fuck a kid, bam, dead? You seem to have little faith on the human ability to cure themselves. Give them twenty years. Second offense? They're staying in jail where they belong.

Paedophiles that act on their urges are incurable; no amount of rehabilitation will heal them.

Generalization is not the way to go here. Pedophiles are curable, but they will struggle with it for the rest of their life, and, hence, teach them, but never put them back in temptation, i.e. near kids. And alert everyone who's in the same city about what they've done. Too embarrassing? Who gives a shit, should've thought about the child who's embarrassed, mentally messed up, and struggling with personal issues for the rest of their life.

Furthermore, we've made it in this country where they're better off in jail anyway! A registered child sex offender can't do SHIT in most places; Megan's Law (a noble law) makes it in some places where you can't live 500 feet from where children congregate. Not just places like schools, etc.; we're talking ANY bus stop, ANY park, just about... everywhere. In Miami, they have these people living UNDER A BRIDGE. Like trolls. This fosters an unhealthy situation; we're saying "we want you dead, but we don't want your blood on our hands. So we're going to restrict you to the point where we... ah... we were hoping, you know... could you do it yourself?". Very hypocritical, knee-jerk legislation. So this is what we're going to do: either we repeal Megan's Law, and hope these people don't do it again, or kill them, get them out of society, and prevent them from plugging our legal system any longer.

Just because they messed up doesn't mean they can't live their life. They're just going to be heavily monitored, outcast, etc. Frankly the implications as they are are good enough deterrents. Make it clear to people that if you're name shows up as a pedophile, you're life is now ruined and you're going to live a life, yes, but not nearly as free as you once had.

Now, more "conventional" rapists? Minimum of 15 years. Do it again, and you're dead. This is ONLY if you prove that force was used; none of this "yes yes no" shit. If you can't defend yourself, if you can't TRY to, then I'm sorry, I have no time for you.

My plan? First offense: Ten years, possible parole. Second offense? Thirty years, no parole. Third? Death penalty. The problem is that your system seems so…draconian at times. People make mistakes, and should pay, but should be given the classic three-strike system. If they mess up three times, odds are they’re just messed up in the head and a death penalty won’t hurt. But conventional rapists are much more curable then pedophiles. Give them counseling sessions as well so they can realize how they can fix up their life, but don’t give up hope on them.

COURT/LAW REFORM: First off, we need to establish a minimum competency for jurors. Not much; you have to speak English, you need to have at least graduated Year 10, and you have to be lucid. That's about it, but you have to show that you're at least competent enough to sit through a trial.

I would like it if we got more prior screenings on these people, just so we don't end up with people with personal vendettas on the jury, a la Twelve Angry Men.

After that, you have to worry about two things: lawyers, and lawsuits. We'll tackle lawyers, first. It's my opinion that lawyers are completely out of control. It seems to me that the winner of most court cases has no bearing on the actual facts displayed, but the skill and sheer amount of lawyers involved.

Don't blame the lawyers; they're just getting money. Blame the jury, because, after all, they decide the case.

How many times do we hear that someone can't sue someone or something simply because they don't have the money, or at least enough money to handle the retaliatory measures that will come from some corporation?

That's fixed like this: make sure that, depending on the size of the firm, and the income of the firm, a firm takes on a set number, on a scale, of pro bono cases. This way, they can make their money with the larger cases (and probably have to charge a premium to corporations), while poor people don't have to worry about legal representation.

Yes, yes, yes. Every part of that plan is good. And make sure the firms don't just send out Trainee #42, either. Make sure they send in someone with x amount of cases behind them, depending on firm. That way the poor people get good lawyers, despite cost.

As for lawsuits? Japan has the right answer: you lose? You pay the balance of legal fees and everything else. And to ensure that some judge doesn't see thing from a borderline retarded angle (like the idiot that made McDonalds pay money because the fucking coffee wasn't marked as hot), everything has to pass through a three person board before it even gets heard.

A tribunal? Why not just have a jury handle it? I’m sure that while one jury member might be screwed up mentally, there’s enough people to balance that person out. They would judge the lawsuit, and decide who’s favor in wins in, etc, with the judge handing out the severity of the sentence.

FINANCIAL REFORM: This is where I alienate the rich. First off, corporations would have a profit windfall tax. As it is, we're rewarding corporations for their profits with tax breaks, when they get those profits through means such as layoffs, outsourcing, and other means that help nothing but the share price and the CEO's compensation. This is what we call "Trickle Down" economics, which is a wonderful ideal if everyone plays along. That's much like Communism: too reliant on human nature. I don't believe that we can rely on an ideal like that when 27 years of Republican policies have shown that it simply doesn't work; the gulf between the lower and middle classes has widened to a chasm, and it's taken the middle class with it.

I used to be Communist, but what you said above made me realize that Communism is imperfect in its current state and needs to be revised (hence Revolutionism). Communism is good…in theory. The problem is that people like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong get power hungry and abuse the system. That’s why safeguards must be put in place. Not just for Communism, but this can be applied to financial reforms. The government should impose a list of rules that anyone receiving these benefits must adhere to, including cutting down on outsourcing. The rich will pay attention to you if you threaten their money supply.

No, I'm not saying corporations shouldn't make money; far from it. But we need to tax those incomes, just like they tax my income. This is more or less aimed at the Oil industry. I'm not QUITE sure how to tackle the problem of the oil people raising oil prices to have us almost exclusively pay their taxes - I can see it happening, we're reliant on oil, after all - but something has to be done. Gas is back up to $3 a gallon for no reason that I can think of, while CEOs get multi-million dollar compensation packages.

The thing is that America rolls out the red carpet for oil companies, afraid to upset them in the slightest way, as it needs oil. Oil is an addiction, and we need to rely less on it and more on something we can get on our own. I think God wanted some amusement and decided to put one of the world’s most precious resources, oil, in the middle of the political disaster that is the Middle-East. We can’t rely on our enemies to give us oil. Rather, we should fix our own solution.

In the meantime, oil companies will be treated the same as other companies. I oppose a capitalist economy, but while we’re still in it, there’s not a lot you can do to stop the oil companies from getting rich off you. The government should instead fund natural fuel researches and the like so that we can switch from oil sooner, and no one’s going to want to pay the ludicrous fee there is when they can get wind fuel or whatever for half the price.

Now, some companies are keeping their profits to ridiculous levels by either laying off workers, outsourcing positions, or both.

Outsourcing MUST be severely limited. America as a nation will be much better off if it can rely on itself for most of what it needs. We have a good, large population. Take the people who don’t have jobs, pay them minimum wage or more, and that’ll fill your jobs. I think the way to do this is to impose heavy fines on outsourced goods. Knowing corporations, they’ll get pissed off if they have to pay so much that they’ll resort to local workers instead.

Time to stop this shit; you have to lay off people? You're going to see some sanctions/fines. I'm getting a little tired - like everyone else - of people like Carly Fiorina telling Congress that we need to be "competitive", and laying off people/outsourcing is the way to do that.

Competitive my ass. The only reason she’s saying that is because SHE’s the one who makes money off of it. She doesn’t give a shit about the people who are broke, on the streets, because the company got fed up with having to pay people decent wages. If you target outsourcing, “competitiveness” will eventually resort back to its own, shamefully neglected population.

Jobs are going to India because your average Indian makes less money than our minimum wage, and does it with a passive smile on his face, and their work isn't as good (and don't get me started on China). Maybe someone needs to remind Carly, while we're at it, that the only reason she can make such boasts is because people fought for equal rights for women; we need that kind of fight for the average American worker, apparently (burn TPS reports instead of bras, perhaps?)

Carly makes lots of money off people who get less than a minimum wage. She’s just in this because she likes her jewel-covered waterfall of liquid gold too much to care about the population. It’s a disgusting example of selfishness, and things like that should be fought.

As for what the average American pays in taxes, I hate to say it, but my ideal is a country that looks out for each other; the worst thing any person can say is "that doesn't affect me", because it really does, you selfish prick. With that, taxes would not he TOO high, but likely higher than we are used to, especially for the upper classes. This goes towards...

I agree. Taxing should be higher. If you don’t want to pay money to help this country function, then get the hell out. While taxes must remain controlled, it should rise, in order to help fund a lot of the government projects. After all, pretty much anything the government does should be for the people, anyway.

EDUCATION: There's one thing that Education reform needs, and everything stems off from there: money. Teachers don't get paid enough, ESPECIALLY in inner-cities, which are almost like war zones.

Inner-city schools are out of control as they are. We have too many stupid teenagers around saying, “lol I’m cool cuz I be in teh gang!” Therefore, we should be more harsh with school punishment. If kids realize how much trouble they’re getting in for being stupid, a lot of the wannabe-gangster kids will back off. I’m not going to tolerate school crime. It’s a crime, regardless of the child’s age, and they’ll be treated as a criminal. Perhaps ban them from public schooling, and send them to a troubled kid’s school. Even give them a couple months of jail-time (it will be a minors only jail, though).

Therefore, teachers have no support from their administrators - who are afraid of lawsuits and at worst, being shot - so it burns teachers out, and it gets to the point where all a teacher wants to do is get into school, get through the day, go home without too much stress, and pick up enough time in to get their pensions. One of the things my old school nurse told me during a chance meeting at a Wal-Mart one day was that it was to the point at my old school where they couldn't get volunteers to do shit; everyone was just "what's in this for me? Am I getting paid overtime?". That's not because the teachers are just bigger dicks; they don't get paid enough, and don't have control of their classroom. First off, we need to pay them, and throw some money toward the schools themselves (teachers should never have to buy school supplies). Inner-cities? They should be paid more than those in suburban schools; call it "combat pay", if you like. Then again, with gun crime laws punished far more harshly than in the past, schools shouldn't be so dangerous as they have been anyway. With more money and tougher crime laws, teachers - who almost always have noble ideals when they get into the profession - should stay motivated to teach their children right, help the ones that need the most help, and generally make school the place it's supposed to be.

I agree here, and have nothing to add that I haven’t already. As such, let’s move on…

Some parents want to ruin the fun by suing the school system for daring to discipline their little shitbag? Refer to "frivolous lawsuits" above.

Kids will be disciplined by the state if they do a crime, not the schools. I don’t trust them to not give into pressure, so why not just handle it ourselves? So unless you want to sue the government, this isn’t going to happen.

By the way, under my government, I'd handle two problematic areas very easily, and very swiftly:

- Creationism vs. Evolution: Where's the debate? Keep Creationism to the Catholic schools, and teach Evolution elsewhere, as the facts - not a fictional book written by man - point to Evolution being MUCH more right than "God just said 'click'".

Well, Creationism is a bit deeper than that. I’m a Christian, I believe these things. However, these are all personal beliefs, and as much as I think that Evolution is completely and utterly wrong, it’s the one that the scientific world seems to be backing, so I’d teach that in schools, but I’d make sure everyone was aware of all the other creation stories and theories. I would also have Evolution taught objectively, i.e. not stressing that it is complete fact. It is a theory after all, and it should be treated as one, not some “end-all solution for science”.

Sex Education: Not only would it be ALLOWED in my schools, it would be MANDATORY. Just telling teenagers "don't have sex!" hasn't worked for years, and with sex everywhere on TV and elsewhere - and it's not going away anytime soon, nor should it - it's not going to work anytime soon.

This is good. Sure, kids are going to giggle every time the teacher says the word “penis”, but they need to know these things. I would put it in as mandatory for the eighth grade curriculum. No one should even be experimenting with sex before that age (after all, the legal age is sixteen under these new laws), and it gives them a nice prep before high school, where that sort of thing is going to happen if it’s going to happen.

Education is the key to protection against things like pregnancy or disease, and if a kid is going to "experiment" with anything, I want him or her to at least be aware of the risks involved.

I agree here. The only way to solve the problem of teen pregnancy is by presenting it as something that can happen to you, not just “someone else”.

Abstinence is NOT the only option, and someone taught that knows better than to believe it.

Well, I believe in abstinence on purely religious grounds. It’s up to the parents to teach their kids abstinence if they’re going to, not the teachers, who should be a neutral force.

The other place the money would go?

SOCIALIZED MEDICATION: I read an article that said that 60$ of Connecticut residents don't have any kind of health insurance. None. If they are hurt, they're flat-out fucked. I still - STILL - owe $3,479 to Griffin Hospital for my 7th concussion back in 2004; I have no other alternatives, since I couldn't go to the Veterans' Affairs hospital - I wasn't lucid enough to tell them to take me there - where Veterans' Insurance takes care of me. I was simply told "tough shit, pay up", something I refuse to do out of principle.

That has to stop. Canada has the right idea: every citizen, regardless of wealth, has health insurance. Period. I understand this is cost-intensive, but we need to get every citizen in this country insured. There's not much around that. "That's un-American!" You're right. It's better. And last I checked, higher taxes - the VAT, specifically - was working fine for Europe. That reminds me...

I would make an exception for the rich classes. If you’re some business tycoon, odds are you can afford it no problem, so the government shouldn’t have to waste money on them. The cut-off, however, would be pretty high up, so probably 98% of the nation would have free healthcare. The other 2% are rich enough to pay for it themselves.

FOREIGN POLICY/DOMESTIC CULTURE: I hear a lot about how some things are "Un-American", and therefore, instantly inferior. Weather it's a product or an ideal, it's always something, and too many politicians use that to their advantages, knowing they can get the less-educated among us to agree simply out of principle. Well, no, we're not doing everything better than everyone else, and the more we hold to antiquated principles, the fewer things we will do better. It's a culture of Xenophobia in this country, and has really been prevalent since 9/11. I think in order to truly get better as a people, we need to open up to other peoples' ideas, even if we essentially keep to ourselves with them.

I, for one, believe that America should be, to an extent, isolationist. America would be America, happy dealing with its own problems, and letting other countries to the same. We’d still send out aid to other countries who need it, but we’re going to let political problems of other nations be just that…political problems of other nations. However, in the case of us being attacked…well, I’ll save that for this next point:

And that's another key: we act as the police force for the rest of the world, which is bullshit; we invaded Iraq with disinformation and lies, all to either get into Saddam's oil supply, have an open road to Iran, or both, while we either covertly operate in or flat-out ignore other countries that really DO have serious needs (like Zimbabwe). Here's the answer: a simple ideal, don't fuck with us, we won't fuck with you. I want America to become the Switzerland of the Western Hemisphere. Maybe, if we stopped meddling in everyone else's business, the Middle East wouldn't be able to call us the White Devil so much, eh?

And for those that DO fuck with us? We are going to bomb the shit out of you. And bomb you. And bomb you. And then we'll bomb you some more. We're going to aim at military targets, but if a few civilians die? Tough shit, welcome to war, and the last time I checked, Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda or any other group that wants us dead... they don't care two shits about how many of our civilians die.

I both agree and disagree with you here. On one hand, yes, if someone attacks us, we’ll beat the hell out of them. On the other, I disagree with your lack of regard to enemy civilian deaths. The atomic bomb has completely fucked over Hiroshima; economy is poor and down, diseases from the bomb still exist. Hell, my sister had to be adopted from a family in Hiroshima because they couldn’t afford to support her.

Just because some complete and utter idiots live in your country doesn’t mean that the entire nation is messed up, and may be killed at will. While you may just be wanting to simply disregard it if a few citizens get caught in battle, the mentality of “they kill us, we kill them” will spread through the ranks and your soldiers will be doing really bad things to the citizens, which isn’t acceptable.

Obviously, civilian casualties are unavoidable in war, but we should do our best to avoid them at any cost. Sure, if a bunch of terrorists and one civilian are sitting in a mosque, I’m still going to open fire. But we must avoid civilian casualties if at all possible.

So where does that leave us with Iraq? Not as hard as you think: get all of our top generals in a big room, and have them formulate a strategy to get us out while not fully surrendering; at this point, we can't just stick around, and saying "we'll be out by August 1!" is just saying "hold in there longer, guys!".

I’m all for getting out of Iraq. Complete mess. My only problem though is the terrorists will get all excited that “they’ve won” and will ruin Iraq. We were gracious enough to ruin Iraq’s government. We have to stay until they can stand on their own two feed, otherwise we’re just toppling governments and letting the people put the dominoes back together.

Then you classify that information, ant if it's leaked, you have that person EXECUTED; loose lips sink ships, after all.

Whoa now, WAY to harsh. If the leak results in the loss of human lives, then they get execution. Otherwise, life in prison will suit them better.

And you pull our people out... after going on a total offensive. "But Chris, they're using human shields!", you say, to which I say, those people are dead anyway; sorry, but as it stands, we're using our men as human shields as it is (they can't shoot anything, but they can sure look good standing around), and this is about protecting American soldiers, something that people like Dick Cheney - who says "you want out of Iraq, you're abandoning your troops", yet had "other things to do" when it came to Vietnam - don't know shit about.

As sad as it is, I must agree with you here. Cheney’s just a Bush puppet. He can handle being vice president, so he just contents himself to echoing whatever Bush tells him. And Bush messed up in Iraq but can’t bring himself to admit it, so screws the nation up more because of some slight insecurity problems.

I'm not saying I'm for cripping our military; far from it, I'm ex military myself.

My dad’s military. Nice to meet you. =3

But we should be funding national DEFENCE; as it is, we're funding national OFFENCE; there's a difference.

Offense should be funded in case of a war, but the majority of funds should go to defense. Since we’ll hopefully become isolationist for the most part, defense will really be the only thing we’ll need. However, the majority of our forces would be reserves, because as an isolationist nation, we don’t need a large active military.

RELIGION: It's a little embarrassing that religion has taken such a role in our national political scheme. If you stop to think about it, we were a nation founded on the principle of practising the religion of your choice (we'll forget that little "Salem" witch thing),

Just some fact-checking here. The Salem witch trials occurred in the l690s, before our nation was founded.

and yet, all of our "moral" laws are nothing more than "Christian" laws, and everything that people want done in terms of what is "right" or "morally just" is just what the Christian religions - or really, the Catholic Church - really want.

Abortion, gay marriage. Check. Anything else? If not, as I said before, things like that should be personal decisions. Also, there’s the illegal prostitution subject, but I’ll get to that later.

Ideally, religion would be no more powerful than any other other special interest; the Catholics are just as powerful as any other religion, which has technically as much power in this country as MADD, the NNACP, and even NAMBLA (a group that would no longer exist under my government; after all, a group that specifically exposes that a young boy can have consentual sex with a grown man is the very antithesis of common sense). I feel that enforcing the separation of church and state is important.

Good. Besides, NAMBLA wouldn’t need to exist; gay marriage would be legal. As long as you don’t go screwing minors, they’ll be no cause for problem.

However, I would keep around religious holidays; people should have the time they need to practise the religion of their choice. The KEY here is keeping the beliefs of one group of people from affecting the lives of another group; a Christian having to cover an extra shift at work because of Rosh Hashanah doesn't count.

But then you get people claiming to be all sorts of religion just to get holidays off. It’ll be a mess for companies and the like to have schedule everyone’s personal religious holidays in, especially because some idiot’s just going to make a religion that requires three months of no work, and they’ll still get paid. It’ll be horrible to shift through. It still won’t technically “effect” anyone else. If you try to monitor these things, you’ll end up in a land of trouble with all the religious groups. The solution is to just have the state say, “We don’t endorse any religious holiday.”

Just let most religious holidays be private holidays with no effect on other people. As long as your religion doesn’t require you to do some sort of Sabbath thing, we’ll all be okay having to perhaps work an hour or two on Easter. The only religious holiday that should be kept is Christmas, because it has outgrown its Christian origins.

Christmas has become so secularized that it’s more about Santa than it is about Jesus. I see no objections to having the holiday around. If you’re so vigorously opposed to it, just take the day off and spend it however you feel like.

Easter should be dropped from its status as a national religion. Even with the Easter bunny, it’s still far too Christian for national support. Rather, let it be as it was intended: a major Christian holiday.

And for the Athiest freaks that say that things like the Easter Bunny, a menorah or the Nativity are "offensive" to their precious sensitivities? First off, they're lying; they're just wanting to cause trouble. But for that... well, see "frivolous lawsuits" again. :)

Yeah, a lot of people are idiots. As I said above in the Christmas section, just take it as a day off and don’t celebrate Christmas.

This would include legalization of Prostitution. It is unbelievable that we still have prostitution as an illegal act in this country (and that Norway is about to make it illegal), but it's legal in Las Vegas... what the fuck? As Carlin said, "Selling is legal, fucking is legal... why isn't selling fucking legal?" The only reason to make prostitution illegal, with any sort of sense, is because it's immoral. With religion out of the picture, that's no longer an issue.

As much as I’d like to keep this illegal, I would allow it to be legal, but it would be heavily monitored. Brothels and prostitutes would all need to register with the stare, have regular health exams, be at least 21 years of age, etc. If a prostitute is found to be working against her will, the brothel will be shut down, the prostitutes inside will be refused to continue their work, the brothel staff will be imprisoned for thirty years minimum, all that good stuff. And finally, a legal parent or guardian must be notified that their daughter/son is working as a prostitute, just so we don’t have any runaways who thrive on anonymity. I would also put a tax on people wanting to use prostitutes, just so it doesn’t develop into some huge out of control thing.

And with religion out of the way, we have one more thing taken care of...

GAY MARRIAGE: Well, look at that! The last obstacle to gay marriage is gone! The only thing keeping gays from getting equal treatment in this country is the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, a belief that primarily comes from religious texts, be it the Bible, the Qu'ran, whatever. Well, they no longer apply to government. So therefore, gays should have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.

For those of you that argue that the very ideal of marriage is religiously based, you might have a point. So you need one of two things: ignore that caveat and call them all marriages, or call every legal - key word, as married couples have benefits that non-married couples don't get, such as shared pensions, insurances, and the like - union a "Civil Union". One or the other, no exceptions.

Sadly, while I believe that gays SHOULD be 100% equal to everyone, there's one place where I can't make that happen with a clear concience, because of my experiences in one particular area. Therefore, it's with great sadness that I point this out...

Once again, yes, personal choice. A gay or lesbian should marry a gay or lesbian if he or she wishes it. Should they adopt a child, they must get the original parents (or, should they be dead, their current guardian) to approve, and they can have the child.

GAYS/WOMEN IN THE MILITARY: Here's a fact about enlisted men: not all of them are educated. Some of them very poorly, at that. Therefore, there are too many people that believe that "fags" are evil, are going to burn in hell, what have you, and have no qualms about beating up fags, and would revolt if they knew that a "fag" was to be serving in their regiment.

"Well, they just have to deal!" Not so fast. You're underestimating the effect or morale on a military unit. If something like this were to happen, morale would plummet, as people take sides. We cannot afford that kind of disunity among the ranks. Not until we get a chance to reeducate people about gays the way we had to about blacks and women in this country, anyway.

So I'm sorry, gays; I'm all for "Don't ask, don't tell". I can't endorse anything different.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a good plan. It keeps morale up, everything functioning well, and no unnecessary drama. Maybe one day we’ll be able to have a society where being openly gay in the military won’t be a problem, but for now, it is, and we shall treat it as such.

As for women, there's one problem with women that won't go away; men want to fuck them, and vice versa. In a combat zone, that's potentially deadly; at best, she could get knocked up, and then you're one body down. At worst... divisions could happen within the regiment itself, and that's where things get really messy.

So I'd keep women out of combat zones. You can say "don't do this or you'll get in trouble" all you want; it won't stop people from fucking when they shouldn't. Shit, it didn't stop ME from doing it!

Women and men should be for the most part segregated in battle. I’m not saying banning their contact, but keep it to a minimal. Women should be allowed to fight on the front lines as long as they realize the dangers and still wish to fight on the front lines, but only if they could face and pass all fitness exams imposed on them. Just because the enemy might be complete rapists doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t have a right to fight for our country. I’d split soldiers into women divisions and men divisions, though, and use them separately.

Furthermore, the ideal of staggered fitness tests is bullshit; women of a certain age should be able to do the same fitness tests that a man can do (ie: run the same mile, do the same number of push-ups and sit-ups), or she shouldn't be in the military. Enough with political correctness fucking up our military.

I agree to this. It doesn’t matter who the person is, if they’re fighting, they’re going to have to pass the exams.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the “Sensetarian” party. I’d vote for them, sure, but as I have said previously, it’s not like what people vote for matters.