This is inspired by my previous question: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/71743/what-is-the-precise-relationship-between-langlands-and-tannakian-formalism
As well as the excellent link that Tom Leinster put in a comment to that thread: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/08/what_is_the_langlands_programm.html
It seems that people are reluctant to say a form of Langlands that is too strong, but as consequence the statement is less natural, and more convoluted. So here I prefer that the statement be natural and bold rather than unnatural (for example, I consider the statement that each $L$ function coming from Galois representations is the $L$ function of some automorphic form to be unnatural).
What is the strongest, most natural statement of Langlands? It would be nice if you can give a short definition of the words you use, but I am mostly interested in the narrative (each this has a blah, to each blah is a this, this is associated to this category by blah, and this is conjectured to be an equivalent category to blah, and so forth)
Words like: stack, motive, Tannakian, motivic Galois group, L-packets are encouraged. (of this list $L$-packets are by far the thing I know the least about)
This is subjective, so community wiki it is.