It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Candidate Declaration: Odium, Socialist

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Ah come on now nfi, quit being so koi.

Just sat it, freedom ERP neds to get over his bleeding liberal attitude
over something that happened hundreds of years ago, and can not be
blamed on anyone alive today,


So all the people still complaining over slavery are OK. I think not.

Always interested when candidates use the phase "the people" and want to drive down to what the candidate means, and who they think the people are.




posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Well, the way I understand it, you want to give the entire country back to the small population of Native Americans left.

I'm sorry, but I am not going ot do that.


Should Native Americans be given land, yes,s hould they get the whole
country, no.


What the people did centuries ago was horrible, I'm not saying it was'nt.
But that was than, we don't do it anymore, and I myself, nor were any
of my ancestors that I know of guilty of doing so.



If you really want to discuss the issue and ask the candidates, I suggest
you create a thread about it.


Sorry for side-tracking your thread Odium.

[edit on 2/26/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Still interested in what Odium means by "the people"

Always an interest phase to use. Used all the time to justify action by Government. "In the name of the people"



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Firstly, I’d like to take a moment to thank you all for joining in on the debate and asking me any questions.

Secondly, can we please keep them to questions and to not off the cuff remarks.


Originally posted by Freedom ERP
And the people are those who stole the country from the native american. What about returning the country to the real people and not those who murdered and stole their way to a nation!!


Members of my family are Native American (Kanien'kehá:ka) on my Mothers side, from the Oakes branch (Richard Oakes is my Great Uncle). I do not support the idea of removing citizens of the USA because of a crime that happened hundreds of years ago. However the Government should do its best to remove the problems that can be found in reservations, apologize to the families of those affected by the crimes of the passed and do their best to help the people integrate into society without loosing their own culture. All Native American cultures irrespective of size should be acknowledged and religious status should be granted.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Freedom to practice religion means that we have a right to send our children to a church-school if we so desire. Would you be closing all the Catholic parish schools? Protestant schools? Jewish schools? Muslim schools?


Why should all these Schools not be State funded? A Christian pays tax, a Muslim pays tax and in my mind the Separation of Church and State as protected by the US constitution does not mean that the Government can not help to maintain religious based organizations as long as they do not favour one religion over the other.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Why should those who have earned more money be forced to make their children suffer by not giving them the best education, in the safest environment, that is available? Why should those who are smart enough and skilled enough to earn more money have to be penalized and not be allowed to spend it on their children?


The reason I believe they should not be able too do such a thing is because of the impact it has on the rest of the children. The best teachers, the best equipment, etc, is kept in the hands of those who are already born with a much better chance of success. State schools do have problems, but part of this has to do with the fact they are miss-managed and I re-direct you to my idea of a “Paid on Performance” scale. Teachers, Headmasters and so on that constantly fail (for more than 1 year) to show any advancement should no longer have that position.

Furthermore, the influx of money from the private sector would let alone reduce class sizes, they’d increase teachers, allow for better equipment and so on and so fourth. However I can fully understand your reservations about it. You’d want what is best for the nearest to you – it is a parental instinct to care for your family arguable the most natural of instincts.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Do you have children? Just curious. This is the internet so if you don't want to answer I'll understand. If you have children would you be comfortable sending them to a city school with gangs, drugs, guns, etc just so that everyone is 'even'?


I myself do not have children. But during the start of last year (2006) I had to take care of my half-brother (Jack) due to my mothers illness – there was a thread about it in the Council Forum when I was a member. I looked after him for 4 months, School, etc. But on the note of education the reason I have my stance is directly related to what my parents jobs are from when I lived with them.

My stepfather actually manages Colleges and used to teach privately before going to State education. My mother was a history teacher for State schools. Both of them see that the problem with the education system is lack of funding, for every child in State Schools they roughly get £1000 a head and for private education it is £6000. This is a large amount of money and is part of the reason that these schools have no crime.

However, I see a large problem being children do not see a future. They do not believe that it matters because they are the worse off in society. If everyone is placed at an equal footing at birth this will help remove this. Along with my ideas of increased Policing (on the streets) through money saved from costly wars like Iraq and such. Along with the introduction of Police in Schools, real CCTV and tougher sentences on Youth Offenders but I also believe re-working the education system to better suit children will help reduce the problems.

Children get bored and are irrational. At present State education does not combat this but Private education does. Part of this is by introducing more breaks in between classes (which I will get back to in a second) and more for them to do in schools.

The breaks in between classes should be there for every denomination to use to pray if they need too. I went to a Church of England School that was able to allow Muslim students time for prayer. It never did them or me any harm.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Those are sincere questions. I'm not being a wise-acre.
Thank you.


I know you are not and it is not a problem. Please feel free to ask more.


Guys, this is my thread. This is my debate. If someone asks a question it is directed at me not you. So please I ask politely can you answer them on your own thread if you so desire and send a U2U to that member and let them know you’ll address the question on your own thread.

Thank you.

Peter J. Sanford



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
What is your take on this:

Socialism CANNOT work in America. Our budget is stretched thin, we go deficit every year. how exactly will you initiate all the socialistic plans like increased healthcare, univesal health inssurence, surly you will raise taxes? Remember we have 300+ million citizens. And will ilegal aliens be included in your socialist social plans?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP

Originally posted by iori_komei
Ah come on now nfi, quit being so koi.

Just sat it, freedom ERP neds to get over his bleeding liberal attitude
over something that happened hundreds of years ago, and can not be
blamed on anyone alive today,


So all the people still complaining over slavery are OK. I think not.

Always interested when candidates use the phase "the people" and want to drive down to what the candidate means, and who they think the people are.



I think your derailing the entire conversation, aside from not making sense, having no point, present no argument, and apparently babbling. If you want to help the Indians so bad, donate to your local casino.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
What is your take on this:

Socialism CANNOT work in America. Our budget is stretched thin, we go deficit every year. how exactly will you initiate all the socialistic plans like increased healthcare, univesal health inssurence, surly you will raise taxes? Remember we have 300+ million citizens. And will ilegal aliens be included in your socialist social plans?


Thank you Rockpunk for taking the time to ask me this question.

The answer is rather simple; the Government already spends large sums of money on very pointless endeavours. The money that is saved by removing troops from Iraq, North Korea and many other Nations will be re-directed onto other things. But here is the main answer. Why can I get full medical insurance in Schenectady for under $400 USD, they can make a profit, the hospital can make a profit and many other people can? Surely that means a large proportion of that can be what? Reduced. This is where the real fun begins.

The Government bothers to care for its people; it begins to place people to research how much it would directly cost Per-person to replace private medical insurance with a National medical insurance. This is then placed on every single person on the US of A as “Medical Tax”. The money that can be saved through things such as solar powered housing reducing energy bills can be re-directed. For those who already have private medical insurance they would in fact be saving money.

It all boils down to miss-management of the healthcare system. It is the same as the education system if the bosses cannot deliver what is expected of them they are fired. No more lax management by officials who ruin the Nation due to safe Government jobs.

Edit: It should read: South Korea and not North Korea.

[edit on 26/2/2007 by Odium]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
In theory it all sounds fine, but it is best to look at our friends else where you have attempted this. The entire Soviet Bloc, Canada, the UK, France... is that what you wish to turn America into? Burocratic Medicine, how can that be good for the people, save the extreme poor?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
In theory it all sounds fine, but it is best to look at our friends else where you have attempted this. The entire Soviet Bloc, Canada, the UK, France... is that what you wish to turn America into? Burocratic Medicine, how can that be good for the people, save the extreme poor?


You hit the nail on the head: Burocratic Medicine. That is why it fails because of bad management. If it can work and it can make a profit a Government can also make it work. There's no reason they can not.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Still interested in what Odium means by "the people"

Always an interest phase to use. Used all the time to justify action by Government. "In the name of the people"



Exactly what I said.

By "The People" I mean each individual member of society whose individual vote should be counted.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Rockpuck
In theory it all sounds fine, but it is best to look at our friends else where you have attempted this. The entire Soviet Bloc, Canada, the UK, France... is that what you wish to turn America into? Burocratic Medicine, how can that be good for the people, save the extreme poor?


You hit the nail on the head: Burocratic Medicine. That is why it fails because of bad management. If it can work and it can make a profit a Government can also make it work. There's no reason they can not.


That is true, if it can be managed right, it will work perfectly as long as the people have the will to support it. 300 million people though, 50 states, so many wants, different needs, it wont be an easy task.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Going to ask all socialist candidates this...

Would you seek Nationalization on certain corporations and sectors? and, most importantly, would you seek to create a Socialist Republic format?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Would you seek Nationalization on certain corporations and sectors? and, most importantly, would you seek to create a Socialist Republic format?


Thank you Infinite for taking the time to ask me this question.

The answer is yes. I would seek to bring key corporations and industry under the control over the Government. I am a firm believer that if something is needed – such as education, healthcare, basic food, water, electricity – and so on and so fourth and these can be ran for a profit by private industry than the Government can do the same. In fact there is no reason as to why the Government can not run the industries as they are now, marginally lowering prices to remove the bonuses placed to the share holders and any future profits going directly back into the local community.

Take Texas for example: Say over a financial year the energy company made $10,000,000 USD – the Government could then spend this back directly into the people by the introduction of free solar panels, wind turbines and more renewable energy to bring larger savings to the individual. Of course in the long term it would results in people loosing work in the electricity companies and other sectors but the fact is we can’t run on fossil fuels forever and we need to find a reliable alternative. Alternatively we can use these people who loose work to re-train and to help maintain the solar panels, wind turbines and other forms of renewable energy in case they breakdown.

I am a firm believer that over-charging people for the basic commodities that we need to survive: housing, food, water and electricity helps to do nothing but increase the rate of crime in the United States of American. Furthermore as I have outlined in previous posts I will not remove the ability for individuals to own private property (even allowing a house to be removed from the inheritance tax) but I do believe that anyone who attempts to buy a second home should define why they need a second home because all that these people do by buying 5, 6, 7 and more homes to rent out is to force the house prices up so the average citizen can never afford to buy property and thus results in them spending more over their lifetime to keep a roof over their head.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Reinstalling community into our world

Over the last few years the sense of Community and individual identity seems to have vastly shrunken. As many of us will know, the older generation speak of a time when everyone knew everyone in his or her area. Now it seems as though that has gone. In the years that have passed I've noticed things such as Youth Centres shutting down and claiming that children no longer desire to use them. But never do they look at why they desire not – these centres did not modernize. They did not move with the times and thus people do not want to go. To reintroduce such places with a mode contemporary theme would help to ease the work the Police do at night with underage drinking. Furthermore to relax many pieces of legislation to help re-instate the sense of community and its identity would help society even further.

We as a people need to change how things are. We need to go back to the way we used to be – how many people can name ten of their neighbours? Now think if we live in a metropolitan there are thousands of people and we do not even know our local area? People can't walk down the street at night through fear of being attacked. This is a society and a World gone wrong. Nobody should fear walking around at night.

Now, my answer to changing the society and re-installing community is simple. We need to start doing several things. WE must sit back and begin to install Youth Centres, local amenities, a local butcher, baker and shop. No longer should people spend 30 minutes driving to and then another 30 minutes from a supermarket. We are living in the age of Global Warming yet we don't have a local shop? I am forced to travel 20 minutes to a butcher – in fact, in the whole area of my town (50,000) we have one independent butcher and green grocer. However we have 5 supermarkets – whose prices are not that dissimilar to that of the private butcher.

Thus it is simple, we should begin to re-install such things. A local butcher for every (roughly) 12,000 people or from a typical family (2 parents and 2 children) 3,000 houses. There should be a local health facility, including a gym, swimming pool and other such things ran at the cost of running it. It should not cost people more that it costs to be taken care of. The Youth Centre should be based around things such as field trips to amusement parks ran at cost so low income families can send their children on them. They should be updated to have things such as computer games. They should give a reason for children to be there and not out in parks drinking. We should have a local baker, green grocer and other things. WE should as a people stop going to Supermarkets who strangle African Nations and our own farmers dropping the prices and forcing the Government to subsidise the farmers.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I'll be asking all candidates this.


What is your opinion the current election age, that is having to be at least
35 to become president, should it be lowered, raised or stay the same?

What are your thoughts on the requirement that one must be born in the
United States to become president, should it be changed or stay the
same?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
What is your opinion the current election age, that is having to be at least
35 to become president, should it be lowered, raised or stay the same?


There should not be a limit. If the people think someone at 18 can do the best job possible, why should we say they have no right to vote for that person? We are not the supreme authority.


Originally posted by iori_komei
What are your thoughts on the requirement that one must be born in the
United States to become president, should it be changed or stay the
same?


Again, I believe that anyone who is a citizen should have the possibility. If they are good enough to pay tax, work in the Nation and for the Nation they should be allowed to run for office.


df1

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Too long have the poor been forced to pay for the over-inflated house prices so that the rich can gain their holiday homes.

In the US, many of the not so rich have weekend or vacation homes. Perhaps we have a different definition of what is considered rich. Could you expand on what real estate ownership limitations you have mind and define what you consider rich.



Private education should be outlawed, with those who wish to donate additional money to the education system having it spread equally among the schools.

At the college level the US has a private educational system in name only as most colleges termed private could not survive without substantial federal subsidies of some form. How would you change the university system?

For the primary through high school grade levels the US has many religious schools. How would you handle these schools and parents that would strongly object to the secularism of state schools? I would expect to have parental protests in the streets.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

In the US, many of the not so rich have weekend or vacation homes. Perhaps we have a different definition of what is considered rich. Could you expand on what real estate ownership limitations you have mind and define what you consider rich.


They are rich. The point where you can buy more than you need to survive easily you are rich, not extremely rich but very rich. There are people in the USA who cannot afford to own a house, whose children have to help work so that they can afford to eat, it is situations like this and areas these people live in that are forced to create crime. They have no sense of ownership or identity because of the over inflated house prices.

The limitations I would place are simple: You can buy any single house you can afford, the moment you intend to buy a second house you need to identify why you need it. If it helps the Nation as a whole than they can buy an additional house if it doesn’t they cannot. The need for a holiday home is not a valid reason to need a house, especially when it is at the expense of someone else and means that another individual cannot own a house.


At the college level the US has a private educational system in name only as most colleges termed private could not survive without substantial federal subsidies of some form. How would you change the university system?


The problem is, they are still private – I cannot go into these Universities without being able to pay a large sum of money – due to this it excludes many very talented children the ability to go (as scholarships are limited). MY plan for the education system is simple, the money we spend on ridiculous things such as the re-building of Iraq or the tens of military bases around the world and so on and so fourth should be placed into the education system. Also a reduction in Government would lower the amount of wasted tax dollars as well.


For the primary through high school grade levels the US has many religious schools. How would you handle these schools and parents that would strongly object to the secularism of state schools? I would expect to have parental protests in the streets.


I actually didn’t say anywhere that I would create a system where religious schools do not exist. Last I checked the Government was not allowed to favour one religion over the other – but if these religious people and their faith are treated equally a problem is not created. I went to a religious school in fact a large percentage of the Schools in the UK are religious and it has done me no harm – I was not forced to become a Christian. But if a Christian pays tax into the education system than he has the right to a Christian School.

I myself do disagree with the indoctrination of children to a set religious belief and I do believe the Government should be watching this issue. Their can be a fine line between indoctrination and religious extremism and I do believe that the Government need to begin to address this – why do the parents not allow the children to make their own minds up? Did Jesus not convert the disciples? Did Mohammed not do the same? If we have to drill into children that this is your God, you worship him than there is a problem and the Government needs to look into it. If anything the Government need to promote the idea of children having more freedom to make their own decisions.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Key Industry

A few times so far I have mentioned the term; “Key Industry” and I do believe that now is the time where I should outline these.

Key Industry is:

Food Transportation.
Farming.
Hospitals.
Schools.
Transport (Trains, Internal planes).
Border Security.
Police.
Ports.
Factories.

In my view, these industries should be State owned and controlled. Food production for example should be at the lowest level (Farming) owned by the state and ran at the lowest cost possible. It is unbelievable to think that a modern society such as the USA has people starving. Furthermore the transportation of food should be state controlled so that the infrastructure is there in case of an emergency.

The others I will explain reasons as to why if people would desire them. :-) Just ask and I shall answer.


df1

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
A system of “Paid on Performance” for Government agencies punishing those who fail to meet targets and rewarding those who do the people should not bare the incompetence of elected officials.

Your "Paid Performance" for government agencies seems counter productive. If an agency fails to meet it's targets and you take away some amount of money from the agency it appears that the agency in question would have fewer resources with which to deliver it's services thus making it less able to meet future targets which would result more penalties. And the process then repeats itself. How will you prevent this reward system of yours from the downward spiral of failure described above?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join