You are President

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-21 14:03:38

Well, hopefully you can avoid the first-term abortion.
[did I just say that out loud?!]

Are you threatening the President?

clark · 2004-06-21 14:09:57

Men in suits and dark glasses have advised me to read the following prepared statement:

I in no way was threatening the life of our glorious and revered leader who has personally sacrificed and struggled in the face of danger and uncertainty to forge a better and more free world for all of mankind and do solmenly swear upon my life and honor that I will do whatever is within my power to protect and serve this president to the best of my abilities, so long as I shall live.

[end tortur... er, I mean my re-education into the light of truth and justice]

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-21 14:21:27

That was harsh.

I mean for you.

I knew I should have had uniforms made up for those Secret Service guys. It's just that the SS badge on the collars didn't sit right, ya know... :hm:

My fellow Americans, I deeply regret the usurpation and abuse of power these past years. Therefore, I am ending the state of emergency and authorizing elections to take place next November. When the new President takes office, I will go into voluntary exile. On Mars. Actually, I'll do it a few days beofre. Wouldn't want to get indicted or soem foolishness.

Unless former President Clark is the winner of these elections, then the "state of emergency, prosperity and generally good stuff" is back on.

clark · 2004-06-21 14:36:57

I think I might be the first President to be executed for something or other. :laugh:

Is that still considered assination if it is done via the legal checks and balances? I wonder if I would be allowed to pardon myself. Probably not.

Morris · 2004-08-04 21:22:50

How can you say that a flat tax would be unfair?
It is unfair because it forces those who can pay the least, to pay the most, in terms of relative net worth.
If I have $10,000 to live on, and you take 10%, I now have only $9,000 dollars to live on. I have even less when I barely have any to begin with. If you have $10 million to live on, and we take 10%, you still have 9 million dollars to live on. You get one less fancy car, my kids don't eat for a month.
That is not equitable. That is not safe for society as it creates disparity of such magnitude that it undermines social stability. People will start evaluating criminal activity as a neccessity, just to eat.
Under my system there would be no other federal taxes.
Then there would be no federal government, no federal judicial branch, no national standing army, no NASA, no missle defense shields, no CDC, no FDA, no export control, no checks along the borders, no control over interstate commerce, in short, no coherent structure by which to guide the union. Congrats, you just made America into a bastardized version of Africa.
I consider this a good thing, they lower echelons curently pay no taxes, why should they not shoulder any of the burden when uncle sam takes nearly half of all I make?
Because the uber rich are able to make oodles of money because we have rule of law and a stable society, the rich benefit more from a stable society more than the poor and down trodden. Government is what keeps the rich, rich. They should pay just a bit more for that privelage. Otherwise, some rather smart poor people, who by no fault of their own happen to be poor, will decide to band together, get some guns, and come take ALL of your wealth.
Let me tip you into to something, the poor in this country, all ideology and spinning aside are poor for a reason,
Let me tip you into something, people are poor often for reasons beyond their control. That isn't ideology, that's just reality. Yeah, we have a lot of latitude to improve our station in life, but just because we have that opportunity in general dosen't mean it always works out in practice.
Yes the people who have been paying into the moribound social security system will loose money, but they will save thousands in the long run by not having to pay into something that will be bankrupt long before they see it, and will recoup the losses by being able to profit from the money by investing it.
Oh, you mean invest it in companies like Enron? Global Crossing? Or a dozen other companies that play number games and run off with peoples pensions and life savings, making them poor and destitute? But I guess that's the individuals fault, cause now they are poor.
Same goes for medicare, we need to get away from this nanny state mentality.
Ever walk down the street and have to step over someone with TB? Want to find deformed babies in the gutter outside your home? Want to see grandma selling the last of her family heirlooms for a buck a piece so she can get her next insulin shot?
Brave New World you're devising.

What a great post! And just when I was about to get frustrated with you over some of your other ones.

Morris · 2004-08-05 02:04:09

Today in this country the vast majority of the people receive the greatest health care the world can offer thanks to the companies they work for.

What constitutes a "vast" majority? It seems that I read not long ago that there are 40+ million people in the US who are employed but who do not receive health insurance. Let's be conservative and double that to take into account their dependents. And the number is increasing each year as more as the company's portion of the premium decreases and the worker can't afford the increase in their portion of the premium. And, of course, this doesn't take account of people who are unemployed, either because of being laid off or who are chronically unemployed and thus not on the unemployment rolls at all. Outside a census, we have no good way of determining how many people this is. Taking a rough estimate of the US population as 300 million we can estimate that at least a third of the population receives no health insurance at all. Quite a significant number, if you ask me.

So lets be fair. Let's look at the health of all the people in our country. Using standard public health measures such as infant mortality rate, average age at death, etc. we rank far from first in the world. Sometimes we get ecstatic if one of the indicators gets better and puts us in the top 10. I think we may have come in 7th or so in infant mortality recently. And who beats us out, with a few exceptions, you guessed it - industrially developed countries who have national health insurance! Where, as a nation (vs. small isolated villages one place and another), do people live longest? In France!!

Yes, if you are one of the lucky ones, you get care very fast and have the aid of a lot of expensive (sometimes insanely overpriced) technological gadgets in the US. There's always a lot of whining about long times to treatment in NHI economies but sometimes you don't need short times. A few years ago, I had hemorrhoids repaired. I got in in a week or so. The doctors said that surgery was appropriate, but I could easily have waited a couple of years, if not more.

And let's take a look at some of the treatments. I haven't seen very recent research but for a long time, there was no difference in mortality between those people with coronary artery blockages who had bypass surgery and those who were treated with medication. Yes, those with the surgery USUALLY (minus those who suffered brain damage from loss of oxygen, etc.) had more pleasant lives. But if we had a proper incentive system where people were using their own money rather than insurance company money to pay, many would surely have chosen the medication route. And this is likely the key to a practical system of holding down, or even reducing, the cost of medical care.

Now this is psychologically very interesting. If a person CHOOSES to take meds rather than having bypass surgery, everthing is seen to be fine. But if the government says that medication is the most appropriate, then it is seen as inefficient, hard-hearted, behind the times, etc.

If granny is selling her heirlooms to pay for her insulin shot it's because the trial lawyers with frivialous mal practice suits have driven up the cost of health care. The biggest problem with this countries health care system is the abuse of the mal practice system, and the influence medicare and medicad exert over the medical establishment.

What a hoot! You really have been lost in the wild blue yonder. Another personal example, I had some serious energy and concentration problems. Also some symptoms of depression. My psychiatrist indicated that some depression was present, but also wanted me to do a sleep study. Fine, I do the sleep study. Two of them. The first established a substantial level of obstructive sleep apnea and also indicated a cardiac arrythmia. The latter is sometimes a consequence of the sleep apnea and will often improve or disappear when the sleep apnea is treated. The second study indicated that I responded well to CPAP treatment as far as the sleep apnea went, but there was no improvement in my arrythmia.

First issue, I have since found out that sleep studies ordinarily are done in a single night, with the first part of the night to establish the apnea, and the second to see how it responds to treatment. In short my doctor had me spend two nights in the hospital, with two interpretive interviews when it might have been done in one. Multiply this by thousands or tens of thousands of incidents per month and you don't have to ask why medical costs are so high.

Next issue, the arrythmia. Since it didn't improve with my treatment I asked my primary care physician about it. He informed me that people with sleep apnea are unusually likely to drop dead for no apparent reason. So he advised that I see a cardiac rhythm specialist, which I did. She had my records and went through a basic history and exam including listening to my heart. She found nothing wrong, but suggested, just to be sure, that I have a type of ultrasound of my heart done, just to be sure. She knew, and I knew, that it was very unlikely that anything fundamental was wrong. She must have picked up that I was a little reticent, because as soon as I mentioned making an appointment she broke in and made arrangements for me to take the test before I left her office. When I got the statement, it turned out it was not one test, but three, including a "color sonogram" totalling about $1000. Excellent care? Yes. Necessary? Well "medically necessary" takes on some funny meanings these days, but practically speaking, not a chance. And if I had to pay any significant portion of it myself, or was even told what my portion would cost, I would not have done it.

In another kind of situation, a few years ago I saw a very interesting discussion of medical economics put on by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank. While I don't remember the name of the disorder, a disease was discussed which was typically treated by medication. A new treatment was being investigated which involved surgery, a bone-marrow transplant to be exact. Naturally surgery is very expensive and brings in a lot of money both to the surgeon and to the hospital. The managed-care company involved refused to pay for the bone-marrow transplant on the grounds that it was an "experimental procedure". This created a fire-storm of protest of the type libertarians like to hear (withholding treatment, people dying while there are vast delays, etc.) Naturally all this was also being fuelled by surgeons, hospitals, irate wealthy potential patients, etc. so the restriction was removed and the surgeries permitted. After the clinical trials were complete, there was no difference in effectiveness between the medication and the much, much more expensive surgery. The poor managed care company was standing in the middle trying to hold their thumb in the dyke, but you generally can't overcome peoples: (1) greed and (2) stupidity.

And why is a managed care company any better at saying "no" to people than a government employee? The managed care company has the additonal overhead of having to make profits. And they make quite substantial ones too. They are among the best investments one can make today.

Oh, what on earth are you talking about when you mention the effects of medicaid and medicare? Please, enlighten me.

For one thing, the administrative costs of medicaid and medicare are substantially lower than private insurance. Seems like about 35% lower. But, you know, it's funny that the richest country in the world stands to go broke over medical care for just the aged, the disabled, and a few of the poor while much less wealthy countries can afford universal coverage.

Also, I would advise you to read John Stossels book, 'Give me a Break' it gives a good examples on why regulation isn't always a good thing.

Yes, I like John Stossels' material. The amount of waste in government is unbelievable. But so is the amount of greed in private companies. At one time, this greed was balanced by the profoundly Christian structure of our society. Even so, the unions had a hard fight before things began to change in some industries. But companies and individuals would often give very substantial amounts to charity. But in some quarters today you can forget it.

Among the worst are the pharmaceutical companies. I was infuriated some years ago when I read that an extremely inexpensive cure for a rare, but invariably fatal, genetic disease had been discovered. The cure was so inexpensive that a single physician in England was able to make the entire world supply of the drug. The physician tried to get the drug companies to help him and take over when he died. He was brutally turned down both because the companies would never be able to make a profit on the drug and supposedly because the expense of getting it approved by the FDA would be too great. Well, I just guess it shows my radical opinions, but if a company couldn't get together with the FDA and work out a special permission for this drug within say, 90 days, then the chief civil servant in the FDA should be fired. And one of the companies, hopefully out of generous motives, but if necessary by random selection, should provide the drug pro bono or at worst for the cost of manufacture and distribution (part-time for one lab tech and one secretary).
It would be the utmost triviality in terms of the huge pharmaceutical budgets. By the way, remember that just recently they resisted providing vaccine for a variety of deadly diseases in case of a terrorist attack. They would do it only with a federal subsidy. Real citizens, these.

See, for them, the question is not even of making a profit. The problem with vaccines is that they provide only a small profit. But, for these guys, a small profit is not enough. Nothing but huge profits will do.

And, in the saying one thing but doing another department, they are all for negotiated prices for private businesses or even other governments, e.g. selling drugs at very low prices to Canada. But when the largest market of all, our own elderly come by, whoops, change the rules real quick so that they are forbidden to negotiate for large scale discounts. A truly perfidious collusion between government and industry!

This reminds me of 14th century England. The plague had decimated the population so that labor was at a premium. By the economic laws of capitalism (which hadn't been invented yet, but most people know when fair is fair) it would be expected that the price of labor would go up. When labor is plentiful, the price goes down, when scarce it goes up and the nice capitalist free market determines the appropriate value of labor. Well, labor prices went up for a short while, but then the nobles simply violated capitalism (and both economic and social fairness) and fixed wages. At a low level, natch. Same principle with the pharmaceutical companies today. Cheating both economic and moral law.

But the libertarians are right, it is the government intervention of prohibiting negotiation which does the dirty deed. The problem is that big companies, whatever some of them pretend, are rarely capitalists. And companies that depend heavily on the government, e.g. the defense industry, don't even bother to pretend.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-05 05:37:54

Okay, two points on healthcare coverage. First, not having insurance doesn't necessarily mean not getting treatment. If you go into an emergency they have to treat you. Sure, it's inferior treatment since their is no follow-up, but treatment nonetheless. Get shot and they'll patch you up, even if you can't pay for it. Everyone in this country is covered for injury.

But more importantly, the entire premise behind medical insurance in this country is flawed. It covers too much. Yes, paying for every little doctor visit, prescription etc. simply drives costs up dramatically while everyone wants more out of it than they pay in. Otherwise they feel they're getting cheated somehow. :hm:

So, unless your car insurance pays for oil changes there's no reason your health insurance should pay for a flu shot. Whether as a private or nationalized system, it's much cheaper and runs more efficiently if insurance covers catastrophic medical problems rather than minor illnesses that afflict everyone. Get cancer, you're covered; get an ear infection, pay for the antibiotics out of pocket. Unfortunately this issue tends to result in people who can't get cancer treatment being lumped together with people who whine because they have to pay for their Prilosec out of pocket now. The point being that a chunk of the "uninsured" don't really need it. Citizens should have some assurance of medical care in case of severe illness, but too many people see our present insurance system as a way to get something for nothing. Basic economic principles have gone out the window in the minds of patients and doctors. "Insurance will cover it" is a phrase uttered far to often without really understanding what it means. Not everyone can get out more than they put in and you can't get something for nothing.

Palomar · 2004-08-05 06:03:26

Okay, two points on healthcare coverage. First, not having insurance doesn't necessarily mean not getting treatment. If you go into an emergency they have to treat you. Sure, it's inferior treatment since their is no follow-up, but treatment nonetheless. Get shot and they'll patch you up, even if you can't pay for it. Everyone in this country is covered for injury.
So, unless your car insurance pays for oil changes there's no reason your health insurance should pay for a flu shot. Whether as a private or nationalized system, it's much cheaper and runs more efficiently if insurance covers catastrophic medical problems rather than minor illnesses that afflict everyone. Get cancer, you're covered; get an ear infection, pay for the antibiotics out of pocket. Unfortunately this issue tends to result in people who can't get cancer treatment being lumped together with people who whine because they have to pay for their Prilosec out of pocket now. The point being that a chunk of the "uninsured" don't really need it. Citizens should have some assurance of medical care in case of severe illness, but too many people see our present insurance system as a way to get something for nothing. Basic economic principles have gone out the window in the minds of patients and doctors. "Insurance will cover it" is a phrase uttered far to often without really understanding what it means. Not everyone can get out more than they put in and you can't get something for nothing.

*You make some really good points, Cobra.

There's another problem: Doctors versus insurance companies. And I mean at the most petty level. Long story short (good example, IMO): In 1990 I worked at a multispeciality clinic. An insurance agent called, requesting 2 pages of patient information from the medical record (be photocopied and mailed to him). Each page was 1-sided only. I typed up the required form (took maybe 30 seconds to do that) and took it to the physician who had to approve the request. I told him the insurance agent had requested a copy of 2 pages (only!) of the medical record. Approved. However, the insurance company had to be charged for the copies and etc. I asked the doctor what the charge was. He said $50.00. I was shocked and blurted out, "Fifty dollars?!" I shouldn't have done that, but it wasn't intentional...

anywho, the doctor got a bit riled (he was a jerk anyway) and said, "Oh, make it $35 then!"

But still: If I hadn't piped up, he would have socked the insurance company $50.00 for what amounted to 10 minutes of work (if that).

That doctor made no bones (pardon the pun) about hating insurance companies, and he stuck it to them every chance he got. Who pays in the long run? You know who.

Greedy doctors are part of the problem too.

I do agree with many of the points you make, though.

--Cindy

Morris · 2004-08-05 22:03:17

.

The situation is becoming so bad in ERs that there are a lot more problems than just lack of followup. There is a tendency for staff to be rude and for triage to be less than thorough unless the seriouness of the condition is obvious. I have seen newspaper stories discussing cases with serious conditions who had to wait very long times for treatment.

But more importantly, the entire premise behind medical insurance in this country is flawed. It covers too much. Yes, paying for every little doctor visit, prescription etc. simply drives costs up dramatically while everyone wants more out of it than they pay in. Otherwise they feel they're getting cheated somehow. :hm:

You've hit the nail on the head. And substantial work has been done on addressing this problem in the way insurance works. However, just as it was beginning to get traction modern managed care came along and it became just another idea that is still being tossed around in think tanks. It's called medical savings accounts. What it boils down to is something like this. Let's say that insurance costs an employer $5500 per employee (hey, these ideas were being developed in the mid-90s ) Let's take $2500 of this and buy a "catastropic" policy with a real high deductible. Then take the other $3000 and give it to the employee to handle all minor medical expenses that come up. And arrange the incentives so that, in one way or another, the employee gets to keep any part of the $3000 they don't spend. A number of studies were done at that time, mostly investigating different incentive arrangements for use of the $3000. And there were some encouraging results, especially in initiatives put forth by the Golden Rule Insurance company. Details can be found in a Policy Analysis paper put out by the Cato Institute and can be found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa228.html]click. It's a 1995 paper but illustrates what can be done with this conception.

And if you look, you can see a later paper documenting how HIPAA agreed to a joint study evaluating this conceptions but put a variety of regulatory distortions in so that the results were only partly valid. If you look on the Cato web site, you can find that study as well.

The big point about this whole procedure, as I briefly alluded to in my previous post, is to control health care costs by having the money come out of the patient's pocket. Of course, it still doesn't apply to big expenditures, such as the bypass surgery that I previously mentioned, but at least it covers your issues and is a start.

In the broadest use of the scheme, a person make payments (both personal and employer contributions) into an account where it could be treated as general savings, an IRA, etc. You start these contributions when you begin work and they keep accumulating during all those years when your medical risks are low. A part of the contributions are used to pay for a high-deductible catastrophic policy as noted above. The rest is yours and follows you from job to job throughout your career, continuing to build interest. Then when you are older and have larger risks, you can afford to pay quite significant sums for operations. But, with this system generally in place, the cost of most operations would be substantially less than in the current system since it would pay patients to "shop around" on the basis of price as well as doctor/hospital reputation.

Since we can be creative without penalty on these forums, my ideal Mars would have a combination of two features. There would be a public health care system which emphasizes basic services and prevention from prenatal care through old age and provides emergency care. It is always available for education services on various illnesses and their treatments. In this role, it would routinely be used even when the actual medical care is given in the private sector. A universal reference source and place to discuss difficult medical decisions staffed with people expert in presenting basic facts and alternatives in an understandable way.

It is most successful when it promotes good health habits and reduces the need for other medical care. Perhaps it can also be somewhat punitive. Like if you persistently ignore risk factors, you have to pay a fee, or a higher fee, for your basic services. Other medical care would be through your medical savings account.

Anyway, I agree Cobra. Thanks for the input.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 05:17:18

I'll peruse that Cato paper(s) a bit later (when I'm awake and more coherent) but your summary of the idea seems reasonable and workable as a foundation for reform.

But one thing did raise some red flags.

Perhaps it can also be somewhat punitive. Like if you persistently ignore risk factors, you have to pay a fee, or a higher fee, for your basic services.

While sensible, the devil is in the details. If we get some kooky social engineers deciding what constitutes a "risk factor" and what the penalty shall be the whole system could quickly turn to... feces. We must be on guard for well-meaning loons and cultural hysteria.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-06 11:58:02

Imagine you are president,
And you must deliver a speech,
About how you plan to move
America into the 21 century,
What would you say?
edit: I meant to say, “the mid 21 century”. Oh well.

I just found this thread. So rather that join the thread farther down, I will start as the President elected in 2004 and right after my swearing in and giving my state of the Union Address.

The President State of the Union Address

Our nation is in terrible economic condition and we have lost over two million manufacturing jobs over the last three or four years. The physical economy is collapsing and infrastructure is in serious decay and needs to be replaced. We have lost over three million good paying jobs and the real unemployment is probably closer to 10% or better and these fake figures they have been giving us over these last several years. Also our financial house is on the verge of collapse too. With over 50 trillion dollars of worthless derivatives in the three major banks of the United States and on Wall Street. Worldwide there is over 300 to 400 trillion dollars of worthless derivative paper flooding around the world. The Federal Reserve is bankrupt and both Wall Street and the U.S. Banks are also bankrupt and the collapse is emanate. Also the World bank is also bankrupt and on the verge of collapse. This current economic system is hopelessly bankrupt and can't be saved and is beyond all redemption or any attempt to save the current system of economic. This financial usurious system of fiat money with all these betting debts can't be paid and is crushing both the American people and the world at large. This financial system is devouring more and more of the physical goods and services from both the American people and the world at large and is responsible for the mess that in Africa and is also bringing that mess to South America, Asia, Europe and even here in America, we are also being increasing affected more and more. Even the state governments inside the United States are having problems with 48 of the 50 states are functionally bankrupt too. This because the tax base is collapsing so the state government can't raise taxes, because they will collapse the system faster and they can't lower taxes, because there will have to committee genocide against the people in there state. If they cut healthcare, people will die. If cut road repair you have bridges falling down and poor roads. Cut education then you will have an uneducated population. You can't cut water and sewer building and maintaince either. So now the states and city can't provide the needed financing to maintain necessary services that they need to provide to there citizens. This is the problem that we currently face.

As your President, what do I intend to do about it?

I will call a conference with most of the Major country to put the current economic system through a bankruptcy and reorganization to save the people of both American and the world. But, most of that debt is going to have to be written off, because it can't be paid. Besides, most of that debt is illegitimate debt that was generated with fiat money and is just gambling bet that should not be paid. All derivatives will be written off the books and thrown away and other such worthless paper that are illegitimate. But, the legitimate debt will have to be reorganized and dealt with at a later date. We will save the personal saving and checking accounts of individual and we will honor the U.S. Savings Bonds bought by Americans in good faith. I will cancel NAFTA and will put into place protective tariffs to protect the home industries and suggest that those other countries do like wise so they can protect there home industries.

But, after we put the old bankrupt economic system through bankruptcy and reorganization, we are still going to have to restart or create a new economic system to replace the old economic system which does not function any more.

So what I will do is to submit to Congress a Bill to either reorganize the Federal Reserve into a Third National Bank that is government owned and operated or I will use Kennedy Executive order 11110 that give the Treasury Department the right to generate credit. I will go back to an FDR Brenton Wood agree with the rest of the world with Gold Reserve Standard instead of Gold Standard. I will then setup what I refer to as a Super TVA project in remembrance of FDR's Dam building and rural electrification projects that restarted the U.S. Economy. Through the Treasury department FDR generated cheap credit 1% to 2% interest that was generated by the Federal Government. That how they were able to build so many dams, bridges, electric plants, rail roads, etc. during a depression and start the process to bring the United States out that depression.

Our current economic system does function and we can not raise taxes in a collapsing economy, so the only alternative is for the U.S. Government to step in and finance the recovery by generating new credit and by directing where that new credit is going to be use and for what purpose. So what I will do is by Presidential order with Congresses approval for the creation of five hundred billion to one trillion dollars of government credit to finance major public works project like building subways, super train system, water projects like NAWAPA, nuclear power. I will also check with states and city for other need infrastructural projects too, that need to be built to serve the public needs. These projects are necessary and need to be built any way, so will authorize them to be built. We also have a healthcare issue problem so I will repeal the HMO's and go back Hill Burtan Act as a starting point for what working Healthcare system should look like.

This actives will probably generate six million new high paying jobs with benifit and start the process of rebuilding America. But, this is only part of the process and there more to an economy than just the public sector of building roads, subway, super trains and water projects, we are also going to have to get industry going too.

Although these government projects are a start to getting the private sector going with government contracts, I feel is needed to fully complete this picture. So of this new credit that we will be creating will be loaned to the productive sector of the economy like farms, manufacturing and mining. We will be loaning money to them with an interest rate of 1% to 2% percent and no higher than 3%. The purpose of these loans is to promote the creation of capital goods and services and not to make money on the loan as such.

For the Farmer we will set a 100% parity price for his farm product so that he can receive 100% on his labor to produce that product. He will have access to a 1% to 2% loan to buy farm equipment and it may even be written off on his taxes too. Beside providing food to there fellow Americans, the American farmer is an economic driver for small town American. The American Farmer brings 60% to 70% of the money to the local towns and community of up to 10,000 people.

For the manufactures we are going to issue contracts build those subways, super train system. But, if they buy there new machines from American manufactures, we will use a Kennedy type tax rite off system so they can get there new machine at a cheaper price. We will also give them access to 2% or 3% interest loan for buy material for manufacturing. We will also make new technology available to them so they can increase there productive and clean up there manufacturing process too.

We will be doing the same for mining and for the lumber industries too.

Although all this is good and we need to do these things to take care of America give leadership for the rest of the world. We Americans need to have a higher vision of why this nation was created and it real purpose for being a nation. America was the first nation state that embodied a Constitution with the principal of man in the image of God and therefore special and endowed with a certain nature that is not shared with any other animal of planet earth since the fall of Greece. This concept of the nation state was revived during the conference of Florence with a man Islam brought in the Platonic Solids and principle of Greek Republic. This lead to the French and English nation states, which ultimately lead to the American Republic and was the foundation for our Republic. Many of those colonist came over here to create a new nation. When the first observatory way created in Cincinnati one of the member of our founding father point to the stars and said my home is out there. So I think we should commit ourselves to a new mission that America was created for and is suited to accomplish and is it real purpose for our being a nation. I believe that we should take the high road for civilization and be visionaries of a new future for not only American, but for the whole world too. I believe that American should lead the rest of the world to a new space development program for future generations of mankind. I believe that we should stop playing about getting into space and doing major development projects in space while we have an economic collapse on earth. Whenever the United States has gone into an economic collapse mode or depression, the U.S. Government then goes into building a major development programs like Abraham Lincoln Transcontinental Rail Road, FDR project or the Kennedy Moon Missions. Therefore, I believe that we should engage in the most massive and biggest projects that we can think of doing in space know that it will be the biggest and most massive job creating program known to man to date. I believe that we should use space as a technology drive for developing new technologies to benefit us down here on earth or where ever else we my be. Like Kennedy I propose that we pick national goals or mission to accomplish in space over the next several decades or so. Therefore I propose that we develop fusion power as a national mission, but while we are developing fusion that we go back to the moon to build a city of 10,000 in twenty years. We will also have to build next generation shuttle and a lunar shuttle. We will use fission power as our primary transport between earth orbit and Moon orbit. We will also have to build several space station to support and advance future human actives. The next twenty will be aimed at building a city on Mars of hundred thousand population. Hopefully we will have fusion developed by that time in a government crash program. We intend to build several fusion rocket for going to Mars and not just one. We intend for it to accurate at one "G" force to half way to Mars and then turn around and decelerate at one "G" force for the other half way to Mars. This solve two problem for use, radiation sickness and weightlessness. Then we intend to build a third city in the L5 zone after that for dry dock and shipyard for future space ship manufacturing. I believe at that point in time we will have about two or three hundred deep space ships of various types.

To accomplish this; I will have to give NASA a new charter with mission statements and let them work out the details. I am currently waiting for an out line from NASA Director O'Geth and I will give you more details as the plan comes together.

I will put this plan before those other countries at the economic meeting for there acceptance or rejection, but we intend to do it whether any body come with us or not. I will give other nation the opportunity to come along if they want to, but it not going to keep us from doing it if that don't come along.

Now to secure this brighter future for all American. For your children’s future and for other people in other countries, I need your support and I need you to contact your congressmen and tell them that you support the Presidents plan to rebuild American which will create millions of new good paying jobs for benefit of all Americans along with the space initiative for mankind.

Good night!

Morris · 2004-08-06 13:06:02

When the first observatory way created in Cincinnati one of the member of our founding father point to the stars and said my home is out there.

I would love to know who that founding father was.

Going on to the economics part, while there are problems, especially ones with long-term effects, I think we are far better off than your "presidential address" suggests. One really interesting book I read not too long ago was Robert Rubin's In an Uncertain Age. The book is about the time he spent as President Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury. In it he gives detailed, but understandable, accounts of the various financial crises which occurred on his watch. I was very impressed with how the effective the world system of dealing with financial crises is, and with how well it can intervene to mitigate the effects of financial crises worldwide if it has the resources of wise and courageous men to implement it.

It is interesting to note that Lee Kuan Yew, who is known for his skill and independence and is certainly not awed by prominent national leaders, refers to Rubin in his book From the Third World to the First as "the illustrious Robert Rubin".

You may enjoy both books.

~Eternal~ · 2004-08-06 15:31:31

My revised plan for presidency,
(1) Weaponry
(.a) Regulate the weapon industry, primarily gun weapons.
(.b) Promote the use of alternative non-lethal defense.
(.c) Regulate the gun industry by closing the gun show loophole
and begin an initiative to find alternatives to weapons in general.

(2) Abortion
(.a) Campaign that regardless of ones philosophical beliefs it is
ultimately the woman?s choice to decide if it is to abort a baby.
(.b) Promote programs that eliminate the need for partial birth
abortions.

(3) Capital Punishment
(.a) Eliminate the death penalty for the mentally disabled and
mentally ill.
(.b) Put extreme federal restrictions on capital punishment.
(.c) Try to ban capital punishment permanently.

(4) Fossil Fuels
(.a) Support the campaign to obtain oil from Canada.
(.b) Create tax benefits for automobile industries that make
hybrid cars.
(.c) Establish tax benefits for nuclear power plants, privatize all
nuclear power plans, and construct systematic solar power plants.

(5) Tariffs
(.a) Withdraw as soon as possible from NAFTA and GATT.
(.b) Establish high tariffs on products other than food, oil, and
metals.
(.c) Create initiatives that would strive for American autarky
in most industries.

(6) Tax
(.a) Establish a Privileged Tax that would tax all those that make more
than $500,000 a year 10%.
(.b) Establish a 25% sales tax on Tobacco, Liquor, Hemp, Cannabis, and
LSD.

(7) Government
(.a) Attempt to decentralize the government by establishing
grassroots democracy.

(8) Big Business
(.a) Tax businesses that make more than fifty million a year by 10%.
(.b) Penalize businesses that eliminate or buy out smaller business
by underhanded means.

(9) Infrastructure
(.a) Privatize the national railways and highways, while upgrading the
quality of interstate highways.
(.b) Establish a Department of Improved Infrastructure that would
nationalize key highways to the infrastructure and improve their quality.

(10) Welfare
(.a) Create workfare programs for able-bodied persons out of work.
(.b) Create universal health insurance.
(.c) Spend greater money on the public schools a provide state-based
payment for the under-privileged to attend colleges and universities.

(11) Civil Rights
(.a) Repeal the Patriot Act.
(.b) Legalize gay marriage.
(.c) End Affirmative Action.

(12) Space Exploration
(.a) Further NASA?s development of spacecraft capable of traveling to both
Mars and the Moon by 2010.
(.b) Begin the scientific colonization of the moon by 2015.
(.c) Begin the scientific exploration of Mars by 2025.
(.d) Begin the scientific colonization of Mars by 2035.
(.e) Privatize NASA owned portions of the ISS.
(.f) Retire the Shuttle Program by 2011.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 16:19:42

And now for the Federal Imperialist response, Cobra.

(1) Weaponry
(.a) Regulate the weapon industry, primarily gun weapons.
(.b) Promote the use of alternative non-lethal defense.
(.c) Regulate the gun industry by closing the gun show loophole
and begin an initiative to find alternatives to weapons in general.

A: The gun industry is already highly regulated.
B: Make it reliable and I'm on board, what do you propose?
C: There is no "gunshow loophole," the same laws apply. Alternatives to weapons... like what? Non-lethal means or lobotomize everyone, otherwise...

(2) Abortion
(.a) Campaign that regardless of ones philosophical beliefs it is
ultimately the woman?s choice to decide if it is to abort a baby.
(.b) Promote programs that eliminate the need for partial birth
abortions.

A: So keeping the status quo, no change but you can play it up as a victory.
B: Again, I'm with ya. Programs such as?

(3) Capital Punishment
(.a) Eliminate the death penalty for the mentally disabled and
mentally ill.
(.b) Put extreme federal restrictions on capital punishment.
(.c) Try to ban capital punishment permanently.

A: Okay, killing willful criminals is okay but not mentally defectives. If the tax payers want to shell out to keep a retarded serial rapist in prison, who am I to stop them...
B: Already in place, but I suspect you mean extreme to the point of exclusion.
C: Ah! So you were deceiving us before! Impeach!

(4) Fossil Fuels
(.a) Support the campaign to obtain oil from Canada.
(.b) Create tax benefits for automobile industries that make
hybrid cars.
(.c) Establish tax benefits for nuclear power plants, privatize all
nuclear power plans, and construct systematic solar power plants.

A: We get quite a bit of oil from Canada already.
B: Good call.
C: Nuclear is good. Solar is more of a pipe dream at the moment. We will fillibuster.

(5) Tariffs
(.a) Withdraw as soon as possible from NAFTA and GATT.
(.b) Establish high tariffs on products other than food, oil, and
metals.
(.c) Create initiatives that would strive for American autarky
in most industries.

A: Not sure that's such a good idea...
B: Thus drastically driving up costs for the American consumer. One termer.
C: On one level I like this. But then, I wouldn't be the first guy in a black shirt to support autarky either.

(6) Tax
(.a) Establish a Privileged Tax that would tax all those that make more
than $500,000 a year 10%.
(.b) Establish a 25% sales tax on Tobacco, Liquor, Hemp, Cannabis, and
LSD.

A: On top of what they already pay? You really have it in for the upper-middle class don't you?
B: So your saying you'll legalize LSD? The re-election strategy suddenly makes more sense...

(7) Government
(.a) Attempt to decentralize the government by establishing
grassroots democracy.

A: "Grassroots Democracy" ain't all it's billed as. Decentralizing some functions is okay, but somehow I get the impression you're going someplace else with this.

(8) Big Business
(.a) Tax businesses that make more than fifty million a year by 10%.
(.b) Penalize businesses that eliminate or buy out smaller business
by underhanded means.

A: Again, I assume this is in addition to what they already pay. Gettin' a stranglehold on the American economy, eh? Oh, I see. Autarky forces them to stay so the government can rob them, gotcha. I'm off to Mexico with a sack of Krugerrands, see you after the recession.
B: Define "underhanded."

(9) Infrastructure
(.a) Privatize the national railways and highways, while upgrading the
quality of interstate highways.
(.b) Establish a Department of Improved Infrastructure that would
nationalize key highways to the infrastructure and improve their quality.

A: Whether to privatise state highways is up to the states. If you raise taxes so much, it's legitimate to ask why government can't fix it.
B: Another Federal Department. So we privatize some roads and nationalize others? Where is this going?

(10) Welfare
(.a) Create workfare programs for able-bodied persons out of work.
(.b) Create universal health insurance.
(.c) Spend greater money on the public schools a provide state-based
payment for the under-privileged to attend colleges and universities.

A: No opposition.
B: How? Hopefully not another federal agency. The Cobra/Morris Healthcare Reform Bill is in committe, we'll negotiate.
C: We already spend more money on public schools than at any point in history and they've gone to crap. My god man, throwing money at it's not the answer! We need real reforms, starting with a political smackdown on the NEA.

(11) Civil Rights
(.a) Repeal the Patriot Act.
(.b) Legalize gay marriage.
(.c) End Affirmative Action.

A: Okay. But there will be consequences...
B: Abolish the legal basis of marriage. Problem solved. Otherwise when some Muslim immigrant wants to declare three wives as dependents on his tax return you don't have much ground to refuse...
C: :up: I have a dream...

(12) Space Exploration
(.a) Further NASA?s development of spacecraft capable of traveling to both
Mars and the Moon by 2010.
(.b) Begin the scientific colonization of the moon by 2015.
(.c) Begin the scientific exploration of Mars by 2025.
(.d) Begin the scientific colonization of Mars by 2035.
(.e) Privatize NASA owned portions of the ISS.
(.f) Retire the Shuttle Program by 2011.

A: With you so far.
B: "Scientific colonization?" As opposed to 'magical colonization?' ??? A scientific outpost? A real colony that happens to do some science on the side? I know I'm being a bit facetious, but it is a rather vague term.
C&D: I'd speed up the timetable a little, but no huge objections. Lot's of time for it to get cancelled though...
E: Eh. Indifferent, really.
F: Assuming we have a viable replacement.

We look forward to working with the new Administration for the next four years.

~Eternal~ · 2004-08-06 18:03:43

I'm a firm supporter of progressive taxation, environmentalism, syndicalism-socialism, oh and I'm a middle-lower class citizen so I oppose all those that oppose the proletariat .

Morris · 2004-08-06 21:45:37

I'm a firm supporter of progressive taxation, environmentalism, syndicalism-socialism, oh and I'm a middle-lower class citizen so I oppose all those that oppose the proletariat .

A whole lot more detailed and better thought out than most politicians platforms. Of course there are some things that would get most Republicans against you, and some things that would do the same for most Democrats. Do you think there are enough of us third party/independents to carry you through?

A few things might need to be adjusted, for example the navy might object to the privatization of the nuclear power plants on its carriers and subs....

But overall, hey, give it a try - it might fly!

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-07 07:01:40

oh boy this looks fun

Foreign Policy;

a. Institute a Draft through the Selective Service and increase troop strength in Iraq and South Korea as there is only one american brigade there right now, facing the whole of the NK army-scary thought.

b. Remove all miltary forces from Japan, specifically the naval ones. The JDF can more than take care of itself.

c. Support the UN. And supporting the UN does not necessarily mean surrendering national interest and security.

d. "Eliminate" Bin Laden, Sadr and asmuch of the Al-Quida network by taking them into custody and delying their trials untill the entire world has forgetten about them, and then give em a quickie trial.

e. Lay the law down with the patents.

Taxes;

a. Increase taxes to cover draft costs by 3%

b. When draft ends, elimate all income taxes for the $100,000 and under bracket. Above that, start progressive taxes starting at %1 for 100,000 and peaking at %20 for 20,000,000 and up. No higher than %20 at all brackets!

Housing;

a. create federal law to ensure %20 of all new subdivision housing are low income housing. This will at least slow down sprawl and keep a ready, cheap labor supply out in the suburbs.

b. privatize the assets of HUD, and reorganize the agency to monitor low income housing and ensure that it is up to code. Severely penalize rule breakers based on the property values.(Sort of a EPA for real estate)

Energy;

a. Destroy the NRC, and allow nuclears to be reclassified as "normal" powerplants as defined by their respective states.

b. Support traditional regulation; I don't think the states should allow the utlities to become deregulated. Energy is not a free market. I will probably use a mandate of some sort to encourage this re-regulation.

Healthcare;

a. Turn Medicaid and medicare into government corporations (Like the post offices + amtrack)

b. Do nothing about ligitation

c. Proceed with anti-trust ligitation against the pharmical companys, and possibly the HMOs, depending on what my "commission" learns about them.

Big Buissness;

a. Break up Wal-Mart

b. Break up the Oil companys into "baby bells"

c. ReCodify the taxes under the aspices of an expert team of economic professors. I am probably over my head in this area, but I think it is something that should be looked into.

Terrorism; (Domestic issues)

a. repeal the patriot act.

b. Eliminate Homeland Security (it doesent do anything Customs and the Coast Guard does, and it does it worse)

c. increase the spending on Customs and the Coast Guard.

Economic Policys

a. Support Farm Subisdys. If we eliminated those, a lot more than the current 2% of americans working in agriculture would be needed to maintain current levels of production. And everyone would suffer.

b. Appoint commission of economic professors to look into Tarriffs, decide which industrys will need protections, and which don't. Follow their recomendations.

c. Increase prosecution powers of SEC, push for their regulation in Hedge Funds.

d. Increase the penalitys for violating patent laws to encourage innvoation.

Welfare;

a. Workfare for able bodied persons. nuff said.

b. Offer full ride scholarships for children of welfare recipants who rank in the top 10% of their class. Have to be on welfare for at least six months to qualify, and be on it during time of graduation.

Guns;

a. Lift assult weapon ban

b. protect manufactors from lawsuits pertaining to gun violence. Guns don't run around and shoot people, and if they did, why are the manufactors responsible? They certainly did not put little computer chips in the guns to make them shoot people. Nuf said.

Drugs;

a. Legalize Medical Marjuana

b. Use terrorism war to take out supply of drugs. As in the poppie fields of afganistan and use the beforementioned increase in customs/coast guard spending to nab drug runners.

c. reduce prison time for drug offenders (except for those who are actual, documented dealers) and issue pardons until policy in effect. Will use "Commission" to detirmine the exent of time cut from the sentences.

Abortion;

a. No abortions, except in cases where mothers life in danger/rape. Make a murder charge for the rapist if there is an abortion.

b. Require HMOs to supply conceptives coverage

Capital Punishment;

a. Abolish capital punishment

b. Create Gulag for lifers in alaska

Space Exploration;

a. Sell ISS to anyone who wants it

b. replace shuttle

c. create heavylift rocket program (bigger than saturn V, please.)

d. send probes to Asteroids in the NEO area and find out what they are made of. Support the possiblity of asteroid mining.

e. go to mars by 2015 using my monster heavylift rocket and Zubrins "crazy" plan.

Education;

a. For god's sake, this is a state issue. You fools don't understand that the only money from the government is through the federal free lunch program.

Dook · 2004-08-07 09:37:21

Start a draft? Not really necessary, your approval rating will take a big hit. While the U.S. only has 37,000 troops in South Korea the South Korean's themselves have about 700,000 strong military to put against the 1.1 million North Korean military.

Remove all military from Japan??? The reason they are there is because of North Korea. Japan has lost all of it's war fighting experience and does not show interest in improving it's own military. I've been there many times. They consider their military as something that is not even needed because they know the U.S. will protect them. You could, possibly, convince Japan to take more of an interest in their own defense but lowering the troop strength there may very well increase the risk for war.

Eliminate Bin Laden? You don't think we've been trying to do that for the past few years?

Increase taxes 3%. Approval rating just took another big hit. Then eliminate taxes for under $100,000 bracket??? And limit taxes to 20% for higher? Federal income would drop to 10% of what is needed. Can't do it.

Low income housing okay but what do you mean by "keep a ready, cheap labor supply in the suburbs"? Are you saying that low income people are a cheap labor supply?

Destroy the NRC, okay, and replace them with what? Nuclear power plants are not normal power plants.

Regulation of utilities, good.

Break up WalMart??? Why?

Recodify the taxes? Why?

Repeal the Patriot Act? Great, tie our hands, just let them walk on in here and continue to hurt American's abroad. In order for the FBI to get information sometimes they have to pay a lesser criminal a bribe to catch someone most wanted.

Work for able bodied Welfare recipients- This already exists.

Scholarships to Welfare children who are in the top 10% of their class? What about a middle income child who is in the top 10% but still cannot afford college?

Lift assault weapon ban, okay, but really there is no assault weapon ban because there are so many ways around the law.

Legalize medical marijuana-It's already legal for medical purposes, been that way for years.

Take out poppie fields in Afghanistan? I don't disagree with you but you would ruin the income of half the nation. I would increase pressure on the Karzai government to deal with the situation itself and support them with troops if necessary, but do it slowly. One warning, second warning, then burn the fields.

Murder charge for rapists if the mother decides to have an abortion? Would never stick. Courts wouldn't allow it. Can't prosecute the rapist for murder when the mother is the one making the decision, also a fetus is not considered to be a person so it's not murder anyway.

Replace shuttle with??

Asteroid mining again? Sigh... This is a complete waste of time and resources. We have enough rocks.

Morris · 2004-08-07 11:20:00

Repeal the Patriot Act? Great, tie our hands, just let them walk on in here and continue to hurt American's abroad. In order for the FBI to get information sometimes they have to pay a lesser criminal a bribe to catch someone most wanted.

And continue to do so despite the Patriot Act. The problem with the Patriot Act is not that it exists, but that it needs to be completely rethought. The problem is not the information, but how it is used. I agree that restrictions on sharing information between law enforcement and similar agencies are often absurd. Unless there is some reason to think that the law enforcement individuals/agencies are somehow compromised (mole, etc) then ALL information should be shared upon simple request, or even on the initiation of the sender. BUT, the information should come with full details regarding its reliability, etc. And MISUSE of the information, e.g. wrongly ruining a person's reputation, should be actionable both against the agency and the individuals involved. It is the lack of appropriate compensation for victims and negative consequences for misuse that make most laws like the Patriot Act so problematical.

Legalize medical marijuana-It's already legal for medical purposes, been that way for years.

Please elaborate. It has been my understanding that medical use of marijuana is legal only in a minority of states. And, even then, users are sometimes prosecuted on federal charges which pre-empt state laws. Am I missing something?

Dook · 2004-08-07 12:01:48

I agree with your opinion on the Patriot Act but repealing it, in my opinion, is not the answer.

Nine states currently have favorable laws towards the medical use of marijuana. A President could probably make it federally legal, for medicinal purposes, without much protest.

prometheusunbound · 2004-08-07 14:58:31

Remove all military from Japan??? The reason they are there is because of North Korea. Japan has lost all of it's war fighting experience and does not show interest in improving it's own military. I've been there many times. They consider their military as something that is not even needed because they know the U.S. will protect them. You could, possibly, convince Japan to take more of an interest in their own defense but lowering the troop strength there may very well increase the risk for war.

Have you seen the JDF budget? It's pretty impressive.

Low income housing okay but what do you mean by "keep a ready, cheap labor supply in the suburbs"? Are you saying that low income people are a cheap labor supply?

Low income jobs are available at your suburban mcdonalds, starbucks, whatnot. The problem is that none of these people can afford to live there without resorting to reliance on family and friends. And there is only a limited number of family and friends for most. . . .

Someone's got to take your order.

Increase taxes 3%. Approval rating just took another big hit. Then eliminate taxes for under $100,000 bracket??? And limit taxes to 20% for higher? Federal income would drop to 10% of what is needed. Can't do it.

Not neccessarily. If taxes for those under $100,000 where eliminated, consumer spending would probably explode. Then the earnings of the rich would, at the same time, explode. More lower middle class people would be able to increase their education, and join the $100,000 crowd. Reaganomics. . . . .

Destroy the NRC, okay, and replace them with what? Nuclear power plants are not normal power plants.

They(nukes) make power with steam. Coal power makes power with steam. Whats the difference?

recodify taxes!?! why?

Have you ever *tried* to pick up the complete tax code? It would be pretty daunting.

Scholarships to Welfare children who are in the top 10% of their class? What about a middle income child who is in the top 10% but still cannot afford college?

I think my massive tax cut would allow pretty much anyone other than welfare recipants to go to college.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-07 15:17:06

When the first observatory way created in Cincinnati one of the member of our founding father point to the stars and said my home is out there.
I would love to know who that founding father was.

I will see if I can find that name of that guy, but I thought it sounded so informed and a nice addition to the speach. To kind of draw the audience into kind of a sense of mission and uplift the American people to higher goals than just day to day living.

Larry,

Morris · 2004-08-07 16:28:16

Nine states currently have favorable laws towards the medical use of marijuana. A President could probably make it federally legal, for medicinal purposes, without much protest.

Thanks for the info.

Dook · 2004-08-07 18:34:08

Have you seen the JDF budget? It's pretty impressive.

I've seen the Japanese forces up close and personal and let me tell you they are nothing at all like the world war two movies. They are truly the most polite and peaceful people I have ever met out of the eleven foreign countries I have travelled to. I have no doubt that if ever threated with real war the Japanese would fight bravely and be tough adversaries for anyone but they will not fight unless first attacked and the attack must be major. Their backs must be up against the wall.

They will not come to South Korea's defense with anything more than token help, medic's, food, possibly blockade of North Korea, but they absolutey will not commit actual ground troops or aircraft and that is why the United States must maintain a significant force there.

Eliminate taxes for those earning under $100,000. Plain and simple, you can't do it. There sure are some funny economics theories being learned out there.

What's the difference between coal and nuclear power? Chernobyl.

Yes the tax code is insanely complicated but it is that way for a reason. It became that way because lawmakers with good intentions pass laws that grant tax breaks to people for various reasons, owning land, adopting children, giving to charity, taking care of a disabled family member, having children and not earning much money... So the tax experts had to devise insane computations to make all of these deductions work together. Actually the process has created jobs as many people use a tax service each year. But I agree with you, it shouldn't be that difficult.

Yes your tax break would allow many to go to college but they had better get in to a private university because the rest would be shut down. The entire federal government wouldn't be able to operate because of a serious lack of funds.

Gennaro · 2004-08-08 01:13:09

If you want to cut spending by removing military, why not start with forces in Europe? There are 80,000 men in Germany alone. I've heard the Germans make a lot of money out of them, okay, but really, what on earth's name are they doing here?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-06-21 14:03:38

Re: You are President

#102 2004-06-21 14:09:57

Re: You are President

#103 2004-06-21 14:21:27

Re: You are President

#104 2004-06-21 14:36:57

Re: You are President

#105 2004-08-04 21:22:50

Re: You are President

#106 2004-08-05 02:04:09

Re: You are President

#107 2004-08-05 05:37:54

Re: You are President

#108 2004-08-05 06:03:26

Re: You are President

#109 2004-08-05 22:03:17

Re: You are President

#110 2004-08-06 05:17:18

Re: You are President

#111 2004-08-06 11:58:02

Re: You are President

#112 2004-08-06 13:06:02

Re: You are President

#113 2004-08-06 15:31:31

Re: You are President

#114 2004-08-06 16:19:42

Re: You are President

#115 2004-08-06 18:03:43

Re: You are President

#116 2004-08-06 21:45:37

Re: You are President

#117 2004-08-07 07:01:40

Re: You are President

#118 2004-08-07 09:37:21

Re: You are President

#119 2004-08-07 11:20:00

Re: You are President

#120 2004-08-07 12:01:48

Re: You are President

#121 2004-08-07 14:58:31

Re: You are President

#122 2004-08-07 15:17:06

Re: You are President

#123 2004-08-07 16:28:16

Re: You are President

#124 2004-08-07 18:34:08

Re: You are President

#125 2004-08-08 01:13:09

Re: You are President

Board footer