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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
You're also ignorant to the fact that i said I would not cut taxes but I would cut unnecessary funding, again, you only hear what you want to hear, nothing more, nothing less.

You can say that you're going to cut taxes, but advocate something that would cost so much money that no one in their right mind would attempt it.


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
There are ways to stop terrorism besides using police force, the police would be there after the attack was thwarted by the obstacles the car has to go around to get to its target. Then the police would stop the terrorist dead in its track before making another move to launch another attack.

What's a cop going to do to stop me from walking into a building with a bomb strapped to my chest under my shirt, out of view?


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Why would I make it impossible to respond quickly and effectively? I am looking to prevent crime on the spot, not to start it. They declared war on us, there are laws preventing police officers from firing at anyone but terrorists are not american citizens so the same law does not apply to them since they have no American rights. They did the same to us, the Iraqi government captured an American citizen (see the paper yesterday), held him ransom, and made sure he got the quickest way to die, as in the death sentence in all sense of the word.

Because you want to fix a problem by throwing money and people at it. It doesn't work that way, sorry, you need reform that doesn't include blinding throwing resources down the toilet.

Edit: Deleted the part regarding martial law.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Johnmike]




posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

You can say that you're going to cut taxes, but advocate something that would cost so much money that no one in their right mind would attempt it.

I am not going to cut taxes what I am going to do is to cut the unnecessary funding and that will probably allow me to have millions and billions of dollars to spend on other things which are actually of importance.


What's a cop going to do to stop me from walking into a building with a bomb strapped to my chest under my shirt, out of view?

Nothing at the moment, I will train them in combating terrorism. You heard me say that I would create an anti-terrorism strike force. Remember that would prevent crimes instead of letting them happen right?


Because you want to fix a problem by throwing money and people at it. It doesn't work that way, sorry, you need reform that doesn't include blinding throwing resources down the toilet.

That's what I want to prevent and i want to reform and change the current situation we're in.

Edit: I added a period after force and began a new sentence.

Edit: Deleted the part regarding martial law.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Johnmike]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I have school tomorrow, the day after, and the rest of the week, and I have soft ball tryouts coming up relatively soon LIKE TOMORROW, so I can't be on ATS for a bit. If you want to contact me next week I'll be on at night, or just contact me through a u2u. Alright?



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I want to make sure that our defense forces can hold on to our nation better than the ones can in Iraq. I do not support a draft in our country because unlike that man, GWB, he probably would be so cowardly that if there was a draft he would move to Canada, heheheh.

On a more serious note, we should stop the illegal Aliens from gathering from Mexico to the United States, and we should prosecute them by whatever means necessary in court and trial. If they come in this country they should be tried in this country and they should be tried for being threats to our national security.

People from outside our boarders who haven't been registered as citizens of the United States should not be let in because they would cause more harm than good.

The gangs on the borders could smuggle nukes in, and we had known all along that Mexico has had wanted to take Texas back. Do I say we need to go to war with the Mexican people? That's not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that we need to really try to get negotiations with the Mexican President so that he actually concretely discusses with us what needs to be done to reduce illegal immigration.

In the rise of terrorism throughout the world there is no doubt that they will try to target the border because there is nothing less that they want than to invade Washington D.C and take our country, and make it called the "country which was once great", burn Washington D.C, reeinvent our education system, or the other question posed is whether they just hate the current administration and will get along with the next administration.

Using the border as a medium would be a logical idea.

Why?

Is it the real life or is it a fantasy? IT probably won't happen within our lifetime, but that this may happen sometime within the near future, and we need to contain this enemy.

We can't let terrorism spread, and we need to contain it, that's what seemed to work against Communism so we need to do the same against Al-quaeda.

I believe that the GWOT is the cold war II.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
So, and I won't be on until LATE tomorrow night. So you'll have to reach me on Thursday after today.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I want to make sure that our defense forces can hold on to our nation better than the ones can in Iraq. I do not support a draft in our country because unlike that man, GWB, he probably would be so cowardly that if there was a draft he would move to Canada, heheheh.

Keep your cowardly rhetoric and personal attacks the # out of here.


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
What I am saying is that we need to really try to get negotiations with the Mexican President so that he actually concretely discusses with us what needs to be done to reduce illegal immigration.

They don't want anything to be done because we pretty much take in their poor.


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
In the rise of terrorism throughout the world there is no doubt that they will try to target the border because there is nothing less that they want than to invade Washington D.C and take our country, and make it called the "country which was once great", burn Washington D.C, reeinvent our education system, or the other question posed is whether they just hate the current administration and will get along with the next administration.

It has nothing to do with administrations. It has to do with our entire country and our entire government.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Keep your cowardly rhetoric and personal attacks the #$%@ out of here.

So, okay, you swore, does that make you feel better?


They don't want anything to be done because we pretty much take in their poor.

So, we shouldn't. America should be a country safe of these immigrants. If someone, from another house, came into your home, and broke into your home illegally would you accept it?


It has nothing to do with administrations. It has to do with our entire country and our entire government.

Well, we need to get back our credability, so that we don't have go through that.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
So, I am back for the meantime.

I recommend a few changes with national security.

Again I am liberal, I am not conservative. Conservatives don't want change with the country they want to stop change.

I am for the advancment of stem cell research, and I want for people to look at what things can be done, and accept them. We should advance research evolution, and we should have a separate advancment for faith, and for people who want to be immersed in faith, we will have a separate study group for people who want to look at faith.

I cannot stand how many people generalize democrats. The moment I am in office I will change the view of Democrats, I will make sure that we don't fight wars that we are not supposed to be fighting, and I will let the gradual truth out when I am allowed to disclose information to the public, and believe me, I will let it known what the truth is and the idea of what the government is about to the general public.

I will solve most problems, and I will make sure that we are safe.



posted on Apr, 14 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
So, I am back for the meantime.

yey


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I recommend a few changes with national security.

oh really


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
Again I am liberal, I am not conservative. Conservatives don't want change with the country they want to stop change.

That's nice.


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I am for the advancment of stem cell research, and I want for people to look at what things can be done, and accept them.

What kinda of stem cell research?


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
We should advance research evolution, and we should have a separate advancment for faith, and for people who want to be immersed in faith, we will have a separate study group for people who want to look at faith.

Huh?


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I cannot stand how many people generalize democrats.

It's kind of easy, sometimes. Many tend to be... "I HATE CORPORATIONS, I LOVE SOCIALISM!!!"


Originally posted by Maverickhunter
The moment I am in office I will change the view of Democrats, I will make sure that we don't fight wars that we are not supposed to be fighting, and I will let the gradual truth out when I am allowed to disclose information to the public, and believe me, I will let it known what the truth is and the idea of what the government is about to the general public.

I will solve most problems, and I will make sure that we are safe.

uh ok

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Johnmike]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Johnmike, I will get back to you later.

I am really busy this week, so I can only post on BTS and ATS, I don't feel like talking about politics much as of now.

I will say one thing, though, that there is no gay gene.

People can choose if they are gay or not, and they can decide whether to be gay and they are not given the gene for it, as no genes, I feel, give someone's attitude. Your attitude and your sexual appearance is derived from within you. It has nothing to do with the genes of yours, but from of the people that you are around, and previous incidents in your youth which may make you want to be gay.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I guess Maverick thinks he can win some people over by preaching about something completely unrelated to policy. I'm so happy that my president decided that people choose to be gay. Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
I guess Maverick thinks he can win some people over by preaching about something completely unrelated to policy. I'm so happy that my president decided that people choose to be gay. Don't you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

I was talking about politics.

republicans think that gay marriage should be abolished, and they are looking for a gay gene. I feel as though people should choose to be gay or not. If they can't, it would be a violation of their 1st amendment rights.

One of my main goals of my platform is to protect our constitution to its original state, and keep the translations strict, and I will give up the rights that the Bush administration ascertained and I will be willing to go through the Presidency without those and still handle wars and do it in a REAL Democratic fashion. That's what I was doing when I was talking about the gay gene. I forgot to say that I am going to talk about the "gayness" of political ideas next.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Gay marriage?

Where is marriage a right? And where is "marriage" defined? What stops someone from marrying his dog, or his chair? What about civil unions?

It's not as simple as "they want gays to have no rights!" It's a matter of law and definition: what does it mean?

[edit on 16-4-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Sorry, I was away. I'll get back to you later. I wanted to wait two days before I talked about politics again because I heard about the school shootings yesterday and it was all over the news, and it made me really sad and I cried about it!



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I propose that we stop relying on gas and natural gas and any sort of gas substance and that we create a new alien propulsion system so that we cannot rely on gas more further and that all of these oil companies will go obsolete.

The alien propulsion system we would be making would be a fast, clean way of getting around and it would satisfy anyone.



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I propose that we stop relying on gas and natural gas and any sort of gas substance and that we create a new alien propulsion system so that we cannot rely on gas more further and that all of these oil companies will go obsolete.

The alien propulsion system we would be making would be a fast, clean way of getting around and it would satisfy anyone.





posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
The alien propulsion system we would be making would be a fast, clean way of getting around and it would satisfy anyone.


No disrespect intended Maverickhunter, but this claim seems a little simplistic. If we could just snap our fingers and do such a thing, wouldn't one of our dying American auto companies have done it to save themselves?

The technologies which are immediately available to us for development and deployment to address the energy and environmental concerns we face are imperfect and we will have to be willing to accept modest improvements at first and pursue further developments at an ambitious but realistic pace.

My question is, can you provide an estimate with at least some basis of what level of advancement in this field may be possible and how much money it would cost? I obviously don't expect a 500 page report certified by accountants and engineers etc, I just want to know what kind of technology we are talking about and how much projects of similar nature and scope tend to cost so that we can really discuss this as a potential policy, not just as a daydream.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
The alien propulsion system we would be making would be a fast, clean way of getting around and it would satisfy anyone.


No disrespect intended Maverickhunter, but this claim seems a little simplistic. If we could just snap our fingers and do such a thing, wouldn't one of our dying American auto companies have done it to save themselves?

The technologies which are immediately available to us for development and deployment to address the energy and environmental concerns we face are imperfect and we will have to be willing to accept modest improvements at first and pursue further developments at an ambitious but realistic pace.

My question is, can you provide an estimate with at least some basis of what level of advancement in this field may be possible and how much money it would cost? I obviously don't expect a 500 page report certified by accountants and engineers etc, I just want to know what kind of technology we are talking about and how much projects of similar nature and scope tend to cost so that we can really discuss this as a potential policy, not just as a daydream.

Okay well I don't think this is a day dream. I can cut unnecessary funding from other war projects that is turning our nation more and more into the Orwellian nation that was predicted after WWII, and I will use that money to create a project to create an alien propulsion system that would be ready in 2035. That would be 30 years before the projected time for us to have ran out of oil.

I figure if we put more emphasis on working on experimental technology we should get the experimental technology out of the experimental phases of its design and into the prototype stages and we should have a prototype by 10 years if we try hard enough to get one made!



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I just want to know what kind of technology we are talking about and how much projects of similar nature and scope tend to cost so that we can really discuss this as a potential policy, not just as a daydream.


I didn't say it necessarily had to be a day dream. What I said was that you are being extremely vague and that it would be helpful if you would at least allude to a few promising but as of yet unmastered technologies which may serve this purpose and given a rough estimate of how much it might cost to develop them.

You refer to it as "alien technology". Are you suggesting that we go find some aliens and carjack them? (And if so, pretty, pretty please with sugar on top let me go on the mission)

What exactly do you think we can get a prototype of within 10 years? A safe nuclear reactor that can work in an affordable civilian vehicle, perhaps along the lines of the "quantum nucleonic generator" that has been discussed as a possible power plant for UAVs? Or are you talking zero-point? Or perhaps a genetic hyrbidization of cheetah and horse that could achieve freeway speeds and get 400 miles per feedbag?

Im not asking you to give me a blueprint, I'm just asking if you have any clue at all what you are talking about.

Forgive me for this next part but Clint Eastwood must speak...

Well, do ya, punk? (don't blow up on me brother, you now I'm playin)



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I just want to know what kind of technology we are talking about and how much projects of similar nature and scope tend to cost so that we can really discuss this as a potential policy, not just as a daydream.

That's a good idea, I wouldn't make stuff up or talk out of something and say something that didn't make sense. Apparently in my early campaign people were confused as to what I meant so I'm trying to get people to understand it better.


I didn't say it necessarily had to be a day dream. What I said was that you are being extremely vague and that it would be helpful if you would at least allude to a few promising but as of yet unmastered technologies which may serve this purpose and given a rough estimate of how much it might cost to develop them.

It will cost about 100 billion dollars over the course of 30 years to develop. Plus, I will give the money to the private sectors. If we are able to make electric cars public and available to the public we should be able to do the same with water powered cars and allow for the use of cold fission and then we'd actually be able to use the water powered cars to make it like jet fuel.


You refer to it as "alien technology". Are you suggesting that we go find some aliens and carjack them? (And if so, pretty, pretty please with sugar on top let me go on the mission)

Alien technology is one word in my vocabulary which means a technology that seems alien-like that has been highly overlooked. Such technologies are thought to be impossible i.e: time machines, weather changing machines, cars that run on natural gas, etc. My goal is to make research become my top priority and to allow people to research this freely. I am for the advancement of science, not against it.


What exactly do you think we can get a prototype of within 10 years? A safe nuclear reactor that can work in an affordable civilian vehicle, perhaps along the lines of the "quantum nucleonic generator" that has been discussed as a possible power plant for UAVs? Or are you talking zero-point? Or perhaps a genetic hyrbidization of cheetah and horse that could achieve freeway speeds and get 400 miles per feedbag?

Hopefully something which will create a clean nuclear energy source to run as the engine of a car and then create something to go along with it which would allow us to use water as the main fuel source of the car. I'd try to get them to start doing research and I would make a public campaign to get people to care about this so that we can have other alternate sources of fuel other than electricity or gasoline.


Im not asking you to give me a blueprint, I'm just asking if you have any clue at all what you are talking about.

Forgive me for this next part but Clint Eastwood must speak...

Well, do ya, punk? (don't blow up on me brother, you now I'm playin)

Did that help?




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join