|
Post by Captain2 on Sept 9, 2013 16:31:53 GMT -5
The third question is the best of all for the Monarchist party and proves why we believe we are the only party here capable of leading NFO. We believe that a strike on Syria serves no purpose and does nothing. This is why instead we propose an outright invasion AND occupation of Syria thereafter we shall absorb them into our Empire and begin the process of integrating them into our culture.
You see, looking at the history of Syria they were traditionally owned by the Ottoman Empire and then following World War One they became the property of the French. Neither of these Empires have provided Syria with the strong leadership that they so desperately need. Syria is not used to being alone and is therefore confused without a ruler hundred of miles away telling them what to do. We in the Monarchy party would like to correct this mistake by introducing things over time, starting with hanging our lovely flag and pictures of all of our kings and queens in their class rooms and public buildings and eventually sending missionaries and teaching them English.
The Monarchy party has a bright view for Syria via a mutually beneficial relationship wherein we provide them security and stability and they provide us with their natural resources. This leads to a win-win symbiotic relationship which we can't believe other parties haven't come up with themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Captain2 on Sept 9, 2013 16:38:33 GMT -5
"Next question...would you legalize abortion" Only in the case of bastard children by the or Queen. We cannot dilute the line of succession or else it leads to rebellion as has been seen many times in the past. One minute its a , sure but the next you're staring down an army claiming that " Bob deserves to be as he's promised us more bread". Pah! We shan't allow this to pass!
|
|
|
Post by daggdag on Sept 9, 2013 16:43:27 GMT -5
The Exceptionalist Party believes that abortions should be limited to cases of rape, and when a mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy. We believe that woman who do not want their child would be better off giving the child up for adoption. There are many couples, especially gay couples who would be more than happy to adopt unwanted babies. There really is no reason to have abortions outside of medical reasons. We do, however, understand that undeed abortions will never be outlawed. We would like to see them limited and regulated.
A father who does not want the mother of his child to get an abortion should have the right to file a court order stopping the abortion, and taking full and sole custody of the child once it's born. Also, a father should never be forced to pay for an abortion that they did not support. No hospital should be required to give abortions for non-medical reasons.
We also wish to see the term abortion legally defined as the termination of a viable pregnancy. Aborting a fetus that is in miscarriage and will not survive should not be considered an abortion.
|
|
|
Post by Captain2 on Sept 9, 2013 16:55:03 GMT -5
The Exceptionalist Party believes that abortions should be limited to cases of rape, and when a mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy. We believe that woman who do not want their child would be better off giving the child up for adoption. There are many couples, especially gay couples who would be more than happy to adopt unwanted babies. There really is no reason to have abortions outside of medical reasons. We do, however, understand that undeed abortions will never be outlawed. We would like to see them limited and regulated. A father who does not want the mother of his child to get an abortion should have the right to file a court order stopping the abortion, and taking full and sole custody of the child once it's born. Also, a father should never be forced to pay for an abortion that they did not support. No hospital should be required to give abortions for non-medical reasons. We also wish to see the term abortion legally defined as the termination of a viable pregnancy. Aborting a fetus that is in miscarriage and will not survive should not be considered an abortion. Sir Dag, If you limit the number of births then how do you predict we swell the ranks of our army? Granted you are amongst the most reasonable on this topic but by allowing any abortions at all you allow the peasants to begin to number the amount of pregnancies they have which in turn weakens the fabric of our nation. We are playing a long game here but each prevented birth not only loses us a soldier who could be used to protect national interests but it also forfeits the children of that soldier twenty years down the line. Next thing you know you'll have the French army with massive numbers on its side landing on our shores with us only having a few hundred fighting men. Our men are indeed skilled sir but they are no match for the Frankish hordes unless we strive to match them in numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Arrogant&Confident on Sept 9, 2013 17:03:32 GMT -5
New question! If your party is elected, what will you do to lower gasoline prices?
|
|
|
Post by Captain2 on Sept 9, 2013 17:08:36 GMT -5
New question! If your party is elected, what will you do to lower gasoline prices? We don't understand what the need is for gasoline as we feel the only necessities at this time are Iron, Steel and Wood but if the moderator has seen fit to ask the monarchist party what we would intend to do about about the price involved with obtaining it then we shall answer. With the expansion of our Empire to include much of the middle east, of course using Syria as our foothold in the region from which we could expand outwards, we could simply ship it back to ourselves at cost instead of inflated prices set by vendors and oil companies.Again there are hidden costs involved such as maintaining a garrison and training the locals to protect the depots and pipelines but those would come out in taxes anyway. The price at the pump would drop drastically under our leadership and would lead to happier peasants.
|
|
|
Post by daggdag on Sept 9, 2013 17:10:33 GMT -5
The Exceptionalist Party believes that abortions should be limited to cases of rape, and when a mother's health is endangered by the pregnancy. We believe that woman who do not want their child would be better off giving the child up for adoption. There are many couples, especially gay couples who would be more than happy to adopt unwanted babies. There really is no reason to have abortions outside of medical reasons. We do, however, understand that undeed abortions will never be outlawed. We would like to see them limited and regulated. A father who does not want the mother of his child to get an abortion should have the right to file a court order stopping the abortion, and taking full and sole custody of the child once it's born. Also, a father should never be forced to pay for an abortion that they did not support. No hospital should be required to give abortions for non-medical reasons. We also wish to see the term abortion legally defined as the termination of a viable pregnancy. Aborting a fetus that is in miscarriage and will not survive should not be considered an abortion. Sir Dag, If you limit the number of births then how do you predict we swell the ranks of our army? Granted you are amongst the most reasonable on this topic but by allowing any abortions at all you allow the peasants to begin to number the amount of pregnancies they have which in turn weakens the fabric of our nation. We are playing a long game here but each prevented birth not only loses us a soldier who could be used to protect national interests but it also forfeits the children of that soldier twenty years down the line. Next thing you know you'll have the French army with massive numbers on its side landing on our shores with us only having a few hundred fighting men. Our men are indeed skilled sir but they are no match for the Frankish hordes unless we strive to match them in numbers. Numbers are not everything. 1000 Greeks held off an army of almost 1,000,000 in the battle of Thermopulae. They did so with better intelligence, better planning, and better skill. America has one of the best trained armies in the world. Even without high numbers we would still be one of the most powerful. I doubt allowing abortions would change that. Also, people are not required to join the military in America. We still only have a full military of about 1,500,000 active soldiers, and 850,000 reserve soldiers. Allowing abortions would not lower that, since there would still be enough births to keep those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Captain2 on Sept 9, 2013 17:17:28 GMT -5
Sir Dag, If you limit the number of births then how do you predict we swell the ranks of our army? Granted you are amongst the most reasonable on this topic but by allowing any abortions at all you allow the peasants to begin to number the amount of pregnancies they have which in turn weakens the fabric of our nation. We are playing a long game here but each prevented birth not only loses us a soldier who could be used to protect national interests but it also forfeits the children of that soldier twenty years down the line. Next thing you know you'll have the French army with massive numbers on its side landing on our shores with us only having a few hundred fighting men. Our men are indeed skilled sir but they are no match for the Frankish hordes unless we strive to match them in numbers. Numbers are not everything. 1000 Greeks held off an army of almost 1,000,000 in the battle of Thermopulae. They did so with better intelligence, better planning, and better skill. America has one of the best trained armies in the world. Even without high numbers we would still be one of the most powerful. I doubt allowing abortions would change that. Also, people are not required to join the military in America. We still only have a full military of about 1,500,000 active soldiers, and 850,000 reserve soldiers. Allowing abortions would not lower that, since there would still be enough births to keep those numbers. While that is true they largely held their lines due to a terrain advantage which we could not always count on. Would your party suggest we move mountains to provide ourselves defensive advantages? What if We found ourselves needing to go on the offensive to capture a strategic point? The colonist army would indeed be a boon to supplement our own but we still find ourselves looking to the future when we have the German-French invasion force landing on our shores with fifty million men apiece through their constant breeding. 2 million soldiers is an impressive number but populations can continue to increase with time. Finally we are waiting to see if the moderator asks our position on conscription before we address the other issue.
|
|
|
Post by daggdag on Sept 9, 2013 17:18:18 GMT -5
The only way to lower gas prices is to give gas something to compete against. Gasoline companies have a monopoly on fuel in the US. We would take all of the subsidies given to oil companies and give them to alternative fuel companies, such as ethanol, hemp fuel, etc... Not only would this force oil companies to lower their prices, it would also promote weaning the US off of their addiction to oil. We would also push for a price cap on gasoline, only allowing companies to mark up their prices 20% over their total expenses.
|
|
|
Post by daggdag on Sept 9, 2013 17:40:37 GMT -5
Numbers are not everything. 1000 Greeks held off an army of almost 1,000,000 in the battle of Thermopulae. They did so with better intelligence, better planning, and better skill. America has one of the best trained armies in the world. Even without high numbers we would still be one of the most powerful. I doubt allowing abortions would change that. Also, people are not required to join the military in America. We still only have a full military of about 1,500,000 active soldiers, and 850,000 reserve soldiers. Allowing abortions would not lower that, since there would still be enough births to keep those numbers. While that is true they largely held their lines due to a terrain advantage which we could not always count on. Would your party suggest we move mountains to provide ourselves defensive advantages? What if We found ourselves needing to go on the offensive to capture a strategic point? The colonist army would indeed be a boon to supplement our own but we still find ourselves looking to the future when we have the German-French invasion force landing on our shores with fifty million men apiece through their constant breeding. 2 million soldiers is an impressive number but populations can continue to increase with time. Finally we are waiting to see if the moderator asks our position on conscription before we address the other issue. Don't worry, there will be no invasion. No one wants England.
|
|