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: Maverickhunter, Democratic

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Hmm... It depends, especially since the Supreme Court said that the Act was Constitutional. Can you find specific examples of why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional?

Then let's analyze it.



www.aclu.org...

A: 1, 2, and 3 define how they fund the government agencies that have been damaged and how they counter political assasination threats.

Section 102 defines that religion, racial background, and other ethnicity of a person shall enforce the laws so that those people are not discriminated against.

It costs the fbi 200 million dollars to pay for the technical support under section 811 of the act. What else do they pay for under this act?

Sec 104 calls for the use of military force in case of an emergency. This complies with what people are saying about how the next terrorist strike on our nation will send our nation into a state of a military police state, and sec 104 allows for this, and violates our 4th amendment.

Sec 105 calls on the United States secret service to prevent electronic crime on attacks on but not limited to "preventing, detecting, and investagating various forms of electronic crime, including potential terrorist attacks against infrastructure and financial payment systems."

Sec 106 tells of the President's authority and how it violates the constitution.


SEC. 106. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

(a) Director Approval for Certain Applications- Subsection (a) of section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861(a)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `The Director' and inserting `Subject to paragraph (3), the Director'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) In the case of an application for an order requiring the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, firearms sales records, tax return records, educational records, or medical records containing information that would identify a person, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation may delegate the authority to make such application to either the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security (or any successor position). The Deputy Director or the Executive Assistant Director may not further delegate such authority.'.

(b) Factual Basis for Requested Order- Subsection (b)(2) of such section is amended to read as follows:

`(2) shall include--

`(A) a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation (other than a threat assessment) conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, such things being presumptively relevant to an authorized investigation if the applicant shows in the statement of the facts that they pertain to--

`(i) a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

`(ii) the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; or

`(iii) an individual in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized investigation; and

The united States government can search anyone under the presumption that they are an agent or that they are aiding a foreign group or entity or power. This means that if they come from a foreign background even if they are an american citizen they can search them and they can even check your library records to find out what you rented and under this that is an invasion of privacy!


(B) an enumeration of the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General under subsection (g) that are applicable to the retention and dissemination by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of any tangible things to be made available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation based on the order requested in such application.'.

(c) Clarification of Judicial Discretion- Subsection (c)(1) of such section is amended to read as follows:

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of subsections (a) and (b), the judge shall
enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of tangible things. Such order shall direct that minimization procedures adopted pursuant to subsection (g) be followed.'.


(d) Additional Protections- Subsection (c)(2) of such section is amended to read as follows:

`(2) An order under this subsection--

`(A) shall describe the tangible things that are ordered to be produced with sufficient particularity to permit them to be fairly identified;

`(B) shall include the date on which the tangible things must be provided, which shall allow a reasonable period of time within which the tangible things can be assembled and made available;

`(C) shall provide clear and conspicuous notice of the principles and procedures described in subsection (d);

`(D) may only require the production of a tangible thing if such thing can be obtained with a subpoena duces tecum issued by a court of the United States in aid of a grand jury investigation or with any other order issued by a court of the United States directing the production of records or tangible things; and

`(E) shall not disclose that such order is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).'

I don't think it's very tangible at all and that they can have all that evidence, if it's tangible why don't they release information about what terrorists are doing to the public?


(e) Prohibition on Disclosure- Subsection (d) of such section is amended to read as follows:

`(d)(1) No person shall disclose to any other person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things pursuant to an order under this section, other than to--

`(A) those persons to whom disclosure is necessary to comply with such order;

`(B) an attorney to obtain legal advice or assistance with respect to the production of things in response to the order; or

`(C) other persons as permitted by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the designee of the Director.

`(2)(A) A person to whom disclosure is made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be subject to the nondisclosure requirements applicable to a person to whom an order is directed under this section in the same manner as such person.

`(B) Any person who discloses to a person described in subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
has sought or obtained tangible things pursuant to an order under this section shall notify such person of the nondisclosure requirements of this subsection.


`(C) At the request of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the designee of the Director, any person making or intending to make a disclosure under this section shall identify to the Director or such designee the person to whom such disclosure will be made or to whom such disclosure was made prior to the request, but in no circumstance shall a person be required to inform the Director or such designee that the person intends to consult an attorney to obtain legal advice or legal assistance.'.

So... it seems that they can disclose classified information but only to obtain evidence or legal assistance? That means there is something they clearly aren't telling us.

Source:
thomas.loc.gov...




posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
And if we dont' impeach chaney first... bush will still be president :|.

So, what would you choose, I would choose the lesser of the two evils. Chaney is eviler than Bush and he has intent on destroying this nation through his foreign policy and sending our nation into panick by staying at a base in Afghanistan:

/3xpwyb

He shot someone with a gun:

www.truthdig.com...

Chaney thinks that gay marriage should be a state issue and that it should be handled even though it is their right whether they choose to be gay or not:

www.washingtonpost.com...


So...what's wrong with hiding after a bomb blast? The Vice President of the United States is an exceptional target at a time of war, and by keeping him exposed, the military would be putting him in extreme danger.

He shot someone accidentally while hunting. I don't see your point.

I personally think that many things that are federally decided should be decided by state. It is their right to be homosexual, but whether or not gay marriage should be allowed depends on what your definition of marriage is. At the least, however, I personally think gays should be allowed to have recognized civil unions.


You haven't shown any reason for Cheney to be impeached.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Johnmike]

I was referring to the MSN article and that article says everything I want to say. Also, we should talk more about the patriot act, but I have to go in a half an hour. So I'll be back later.
Oh... and I'll be busy until like tomorrow since there is a Maryland Terrapins game and a Georgetown Hoyas game on today at 3:20 Pm and 5:20 PM
so that'll keep me busy for the meantime.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Maverickhunter]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Johnmike, I'll be really busy today. Ask me what you want to know tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Excuse me, Sir. I've got a few questions for you about your primary platform.



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
My main goal is to try to convince people that this war is unnecessary because we went to war on false intelligence. We need better intelligence.


As an anti-war candidate, do you advocate full transparancy for our intelligence agencies? How much more money needs to be spent on domestic and overseas intelligence gathering to make us safer?


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
That being said, I believe that we need someone for the next President of the United States that can control the damage that was caused by the last President. We need to make sure that we can uphold by the constitution. This current President has failed to uphold our constitution, and our national security as well.


Do you plan to act on strict interpretations of the U.S. Constitution? If so, are you prepared to give up any of the Executive powers which have been assumed by the Bush43 administration?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
...apparently the situation is getting out of control and people are blaming an entire religion for the acts of an organized group of a few that is claiming that they are attacking our nation and that is causing even more chaos.


Would you be willing to make a formal apology to the Islamists for American activities in the wake of 9/11? If so, do you think it would do any good?


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I say we build walls around buildings or put rocks or trashcans around them to stop or prevent terrorist attacks, so they do not get damaged from one tragic attack.


Are you proposing heightened security measures beyond what's already in place? If so, how will you pay for them? Could we expect to see new legislation sent to Congress on this matter during your first 100 days in office?


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
we are a free nation. We can vote for who we choose to. We don't have a dress-code that involves religion. But is it all free? NO OF COURSE IT ISN'T.


That sounds like a veiled promise of higher taxes. Would you be willing to explain what your tax policy would be, in the even you are elected to the Presidency?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
There are these secret societies running amock in our government that are controlling what happens right and left and they are telling people what to do. For instance there is one place called the Bohemian Groove which is a place where either rich people or politicians hang out together and they perform satanic rituals-- to further the goal of the New World Order. And-- I want full disclosure of the new world order, and all of its games that it plays with us, I want complete freedom from the New World Order, until then North America can never be free.


Advocating total disclosure of all secret societies sounds like a bold and potentially life-threatening move. Are you prepared to direct the Justice Department to find and turn over all classified materials on secret societies, if they exist? Would you be willing to appoint a blue-ribbon commission to look in to the matter of secret societies if there are not hidden government files on the subject?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I blame the entire nation for paying to much attention to Clinton and his sex scandals and for making the country of China a Super Power. He lulled the country to sleep and then BAM let the country get hit by the big one.


How should the average citizen go about making amends for the shame that you suggest? Should we assume that you plan to massively upgrade the nation's intelligence gathering capability? If so, how will you pay for it?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I believe we need to secure Iraq's boarders. If we don't it will become a safe haven for terrorists to plot their attacks against the West.


Does that need to secure Iraq's borders justify the war in its current phase? If so, do you want to ask Congress for more money to send more troops--or--do you have something else in mind?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
The no child left behind act? Many teachers are furious about that because they cannot stand how when one person fails a class then the entire school fails so they have to pass all of the kids. That means that everyone has to pass the class, and well, what if they cannot pass the class? That means they have to take it again in summer school then the teacher gets furious! Believe me I know many teachers that would get outraged over this.


What exactly are you suggesting?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
NO TERRORIST ATTACKS WILL HAPPEN ON OUR HOME SOIL for a long time until we need to go to war with Iran because I believe all of these attacks are controlled attacks by a military industrial compound-- called FEMA. I believe they are behind 9-11 and if my recall serves my memory right they were not under jurisdiction of homeland security before 9-11, then after that they were, coincidence? I THINK NOT!!! That means that the US government may have control over all of FEMAs policies and they may make sure that another attack happens so they can fully reveal the true United States government and it will go into a fully operational status (I am talking about the shadow government).


I assume that this relates to your promise of total disclosure regarding secret societies. Will you also allow total disclosure of government agencies? Would you abolish or restructure FEMA?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I think we need boarder patrol. The possibilities of some terrorist using gangs from Mexico into North America and them getting a nuke in are larger then ever before. We need policemen on the boarder so that they can get stopped so that no one gets through that is an illegal Alien.


What you're talking about sounds like an expansion of Federal power and bureaucracy. Are you prepared to negotiate with Congress over the legislation you'd need to make this work? How would ypu pay for it?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I don't believe going to war with Iran or North Korea or China is going to work because Russia is going to back those countries up... and I don't think we're going to want to go to another arms race so I hope we handle that issue with diplomacy.


Sir, you are quoted as saying "no terrorist attacks will happen on our hole soil for a long time until we need to to go war war with Iran because I believe all of these attacks are controlled attacks by a military industrial compound-- called FEMA." Are you suggesting that war with Iran is inevitable due to Russian interests?



Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Oh yeah, and I want the truth revealed, I don't want journalism to be false anymore, I don't want false journalism, I will work my best so that people produce clean and legit sites that are not hoaxes. (i.e like the person that claimed that CIA jets disguised as Iranians were going to attack a US Aircraft Carrier in the gulf coast). Also, more hoaxes about North korea MUST NOT BE TOLERATED.


What kind of legislation would you support to make these goals a reality? Would you support the creation of a Federal agency to manage the standards and practices of journalism in America? If so, would you insist on greater penalties for hoaxes and forgeries?

Your proposals make it clear that you've got a lot of new legislation in mind that will certainly keep the House and the Senate quite busy.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Well, I said that we should invade Europe then that we should invade Europe only when the terrorists try to take over and then I said what I meant was to have a foreign presence in Europe to make sure they do not spy on us or our allies-- or that they do submit to radical Islam because of all of the suicide bombing taking place in Europe that's causing all of the commotion. I am thinking of a certain number of things, we need to reduce the violence in the Middle East that conflicts with our own interests and our own allies directly. We should not be focusing on suicide bombings or terrorism in a nation that has a history of it that would not attack or have an intent on toppling our nation.


But what gives the US the right to invade another country. As a would be president, has the US learned nothing from Vietnam and Iraq. As a democratic, I would expect more tolerance. Just because, you as president do not like the governments in Europe, that does not give the US and you as its leader, the right to invade.

And do you think the US would win?? referring you to Iraq!!



We cannot allow any outside influence from any terrorist organizations change our way of thinking and we need to defeat anyone who declared war on us. Even if Osama Bin Laden never did attack us on 9-11 and even though they said that they were not responsible for the attacks and that we were they made it a paradox and made it seem that they didn't do it but that we declared war against them when it was they who continued battling us and made it clear that they are a valiant enemy and that we should defeat them at all costs.


So if these organisations use democratic means to influence the US, then that must be OK?



We should accost Al-queda on their home soil and we should not allow them to regroup so that we cannot let them invade Europe. Their idea is that since they can attack our Military in a country which we know little about that they can take us over, and that they can attack our police, and invade us from Mexico and smuggle material to build nukes in here. Without liittle denial, we can see that Al-queda has made several attempts to smuggle uranium into the nation so that they can make nukes and turn a bad situation into a worse one but we need to see to them that we are very coherent in what we want to do with their regime that is being supported by obviously many financial networks around the globe because apparently someone, some group, some organization, or some government is supporting Al-queda because they would not have the money had they not been supported by an outside group. If this means that the U.N or someone within the United States government is supporting Al-queda that official or those officials need to be recalled or called back so that they don't cause any more harm or they need to be impeached and if it is the current President we need to get rid of him to get rid of the violence.


Again, what right does the US have to meddle in the affairs of other countries. You cite Mexico. A soverign country. May be if you as president changes some of the US's policies, then the need to meddle around the world would be reduced.



I am ashamed of how our country supports George W Bush, the man may have done some things right but I cannot see what he has done right since then. He should have been impeached before the situation in Iraq got out of control but the reason why I don't want that to happen is that Cheney would be President.


Yet millions of Americans voted for him. Are you suggesting changes to the election system in the US to prevent the election of another George Bush?



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I took a two week break from ATS and what do you get? I'll respond to both of your posts promptly.






As an anti-war candidate, do you advocate full transparancy for our intelligence agencies? How much more money needs to be spent on domestic and overseas intelligence gathering to make us safer?


Well that is interesting that you point that out. The way I see it is that these transparent budgets need to be monitored for somehow. As of now they go outside the boundary of our constitution. They should be monitored, and there should be a check on them, as they check the people and the government (I am talking about checks and balances).


Do you plan to act on strict interpretations of the U.S. Constitution? If so, are you prepared to give up any of the Executive powers which have been assumed by the Bush43 administration?

Of course I would give those up none of those are necessary except I would only keep a few ones which would be meaningful to protect our national security. People say that we are turning into a police state when we are in reality only policing the terrorists, the state of our government without police we would be worse off than we already are. What that means is that I am only going to reinvent our national security so that it actually works and so that it doesn't infringe on other peoples civil liberties.



Would you be willing to make a formal apology to the Islamists for American activities in the wake of 9/11? If so, do you think it would do any good?

Yes, I will apologize to Islamists for American activities in the wake of 9-11, but it may not do any good, because Al-quaeda was waiting for an attempt to have a global Islamic revolution before 2001 and also that they have their mind set on it already and Islamics don’t kill people, suicide bombers kill people. The only reason that they consider themselves Islamics is because that’s the mainstream image of Islam these days, which is that America says **** you to the rest of the world, and that Islam is full of people who consider suicide bombers to be martyers so it wouldn’t change a thing, unless MODERATE ISLAMICS STOOD UP.


Are you proposing heightened security measures beyond what's already in place? If so, how will you pay for them? Could we expect to see new legislation sent to Congress on this matter during your first 100 days in office?p

Believe me I am thinking about this as we speak.


That sounds like a veiled promise of higher taxes. Would you be willing to explain what your tax policy would be, in the even you are elected to the Presidency?

I was referring to how they abridge our rights when they say we have some. If we had rights that were really pertaining to us at the time of a crime scene that could really help us we would feel a lot better and more people wouldn’t get framed for something they didn’t do.


[quote Advocating total disclosure of all secret societies sounds like a bold and potentially life-threatening move. Are you prepared to direct the Justice Department to find and turn over all classified materials on secret societies, if they exist? Would you be willing to appoint a blue-ribbon commission to look in to the matter of secret societies if there are not hidden government files on the subject?
I would reveal what the public needs to know at times when I deem necessary. I will not keep my motives secret and I am even working on a campaign site which sheds light on the ideas that I am talking about.


How should the average citizen go about making amends for the shame that you suggest? Should we assume that you plan to massively upgrade the nation's intelligence gathering capability? If so, how will you pay for it?

We should monitor all communications and intelligence and phone systems, but only to the extent that they do infringe on our national security. If they are none of our business we don’t have the right to go peek in their business and bother him since that would be illegal. I’m saying we SHOULD do this but that doesn’t mean that we will, since that’s illegal, and we saw what happened with the bush administration, so we don’t do this.

(reply continued next post)


[edit on 2-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I would reveal what the public needs to know at times when I deem necessary. I will not keep my motives secret and I am even working on a campaign site which sheds light on the ideas that I am talking about.

So you feel that privacy doesn't matter? You think that just because something is a society that its people have no Fourth Amendment rights? Sorry, but forcing a society to disclose all information is illegal search and seizure.


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We should monitor all communications and intelligence and phone systems, but only to the extent that they do infringe on our national security. If they are none of our business we don’t have the right to go peek in their business and bother him since that would be illegal. I’m saying we SHOULD do this but that doesn’t mean that we will, since that’s illegal, and we saw what happened with the bush administration, so we don’t do this.

Yup, guess the Fourth Amendment isn't important at all.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I would reveal what the public needs to know at times when I deem necessary. I will not keep my motives secret and I am even working on a campaign site which sheds light on the ideas that I am talking about.

So you feel that privacy doesn't matter? You think that just because something is a society that its people have no Fourth Amendment rights? Sorry, but forcing a society to disclose all information is illegal search and seizure.

What does search and seizure have to do with me making a campaign site?

You confuse me sometimes... I was going to say in my next post that I was going to disclose information so that people can research it and I was talking about paranormal findings, not some elaborate criminal case involving someone who is suspected in a crime. Also, I meant this so that people can research documents that the government has and use them for their own benefit, it wouldn't be anything harmful, like we wouldn't be checking THEM for documents.


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We should monitor all communications and intelligence and phone systems, but only to the extent that they do infringe on our national security. If they are none of our business we don’t have the right to go peek in their business and bother him since that would be illegal. I’m saying we SHOULD do this but that doesn’t mean that we will, since that’s illegal, and we saw what happened with the bush administration, so we don’t do this.

Yup, guess the Fourth Amendment isn't important at all.
A few things you should know:

1) I said that I would reinvent our national security defense system so that it works and so that it didn't infringe upon our rights. I said that in my response to justin Oldham's post. I said we COULD carry out bush's plans., but we shouldn't.

2) Why did you assume that I would do that when I said I wouldn't do that in my post, I was saying that would be possible for some other President to do, NOT ME.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I would reveal what the public needs to know at times when I deem necessary. I will not keep my motives secret and I am even working on a campaign site which sheds light on the ideas that I am talking about.

So you feel that privacy doesn't matter? You think that just because something is a society that its people have no Fourth Amendment rights? Sorry, but forcing a society to disclose all information is illegal search and seizure.


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We should monitor all communications and intelligence and phone systems, but only to the extent that they do infringe on our national security. If they are none of our business we don’t have the right to go peek in their business and bother him since that would be illegal. I’m saying we SHOULD do this but that doesn’t mean that we will, since that’s illegal, and we saw what happened with the bush administration, so we don’t do this.

Yup, guess the Fourth Amendment isn't important at all.

I will answer the rest of justinoldham's and Freedom ERP's post later today, so I will get to your post AFTER I DO THAT! Okay? I don't want to have my quotations misinterpreted from not getting far enough in my response or not having been able to flesh it out enough.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
What would your administration do to help its ally, the UK, if faced with the issue that British troops have been taken prisoner by Iran? while supporting operations in Iraq?



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
What would your administration do to help its ally, the UK, if faced with the issue that British troops have been taken prisoner by Iran? while supporting operations in Iraq?

Sorry that i was away for a little while.

I will make sure to get back to your other post Freedomerp,and the rest of justin oldham's post in a little whil. I didn't want to make it look like I was goofing off.

So, I say that we handle the Iranian-US hostage situation with diplomacy. We need to make sure that they get what they want and make it fair and we get what we need because we need those soldiers back. I propose that we:

- get rid of the press stories that they are making
- try to have damage control to prevent the situation
- hope that the British don't make a stupid mistake and go to war with the Iranians.

It wouldn't be a bad thing to go to war with iran what it would be would be stupid because the media is blowing everything out of proportion in the sense that they really are afraid of them.

THEY WANT YOU TO BE AFRAID!

>_>

That's what they want you to think!



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I'll be back next week to answer your questions. I did not realize that I would have spring break this week and I just got off, so ask me your questions when I'll have time. I'll come here from time to time each day but I will be busy with spring break too.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

- get rid of the press stories that they are making



So you advocate totalitarian government control over the press?



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

- get rid of the press stories that they are making



So you advocate totalitarian government control over the press?

I advocate news from a neutral standpoint and I am against mainstream news. I dislike half of the mainstream news media because they like to sensationalize the news to heavily favor conservatives where they should be "fair and balanced" to both sides. I think that people should get their news sources from reputable news sources and that people should really stop believing everything they hear on the news.

I want the press themselves to establish guidelines about what they feel they want to do and if it's not going to be fair and balanced to all political parties then they should change it so it is like that. Also, the government has always monitored the news, I would help it prosper, so that people would know when to trust the news and when not to and when something is pure propaganda i would have them say it's "propaganda".

I'd be really strict about the news lying about the world since they don't tell you the inside story about what's going on generally all the time but besides that I want them to have their own opinions and what I really want is to supply those opinions with facts.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
So you think that the press has no right of free speech? How anti-American.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
So you think that the press has no right of free speech? How anti-American.

Where did you get that idea? They should be honest because they are saying what they are saying because they are being paid by the government in power to say that since, the government in power pays them to say that. I want a Democrat and a Republican version of each news channel so that people don't feel like one station is being biased; this way there would be no censorship of ideas from the government to the press.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Since when does the government pay any news network to broadcast anything?

And you want PARTY-OPERATED news networks?! Talk about propaganda!



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Since when does the government pay any news network to broadcast anything?

And you want PARTY-OPERATED news networks?! Talk about propaganda!

I'd say BS to that. I want the peoples news. I want something which the people would want. I want to, but I would not force them to, establish a call in channel for different news stations so that democrats and republicans could call in on different lines for news stations so that these stations would be getting different views... they can have a choice to be democratic or republican... I am not forcing them to change... but I am going to allow them to selectively broadcast what they want and not what they are told to.

The government funds news companies. They don't regulate it but the people in charge of these companies presumably tells their employees to not put something in the paper or to not say something against the party in charge but I want that flexibility. I also want a writers union so that they can make changes to the current proposals being made and make changes to what's going on and so that they won't lose their jobs.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Tell me what you think while I am sleeping and I'll come on tomorrow. That's all the time for talking that I have for tonight.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I'm going to get around to replying to the other posts in my topic this weekend but for the meantime I'll talk about statewide security and how important it is.


It doesn't matter how many numbers the police force has but what should matter is that they get good training.

That they can get as much reinforcements as they need.

That they can arrest anyone who is a criminal. This is not limited to terrorists, "bad guys", burgalers, people who use physical violence on Cops, people who attack other people with weapons, and people who fatally wound other people that they intend to do harm to.

I intend to make Washington D.C a safe place by protecting it from organized crime and terrorism. Crime has been an augmenting issue in the US of A and I want to use Washington DC as a test site to impliment my security policies. I will try to have cops break up intercity gangs and organized crime so then once the crime and intercity gangs are broken up, they will not have a gang once I am through with them, and that will significantly reduce the amount of crime in our nations capital.

Why DC? It is a very attractive tourist spot and we need to take care of it to make it safer to protect our capital from the future advent of Al-quaeda possibly coming to take it over and we need to protect it so our police force is well trained enough to combat them.

Our security system of our country was not intended to make a statement saying that we should arrest everyone we can without possible warrant. We should install a system which forces the police to look over evidence that proves that the people they think are guilty ARE without doing it illegally and by looking at the evidence that they already have founded from the crime scene. Looking through someones home and breaking into it is illegal.

So, we need to make Washington D.C a safer place, and then, make other places more safe.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join