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: Intrepid, Libertarian.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
My platform is quite simple, taking America back. The Dream that America spawned many years ago has been taken away from the people, my goal is to take it back. By focusing on education, effectiveness and accountability we will be able to do this.

Education:

Education is the keystone to any society. We will be encouraging educational opportunities in all aspects of society. No Child Left Behind has garnered some success, I will not trash this program but augment it in NEAP and make it even better. What is NEAP?

National Effectiveness and Accountability Program

NEAP is a program I’ve conceived that is fashioned after the Citistat program:

www.innovations.harvard.edu...

It’s goal is to gauge effectiveness and hold those in charge of their positions accountable for that effectiveness. This will be developed and implemented on a national scale, for ALL government funds spent. Your dollars WILL be put to good use. Where do we start Intrepid?

You start at the wellspring, Washington. There needs to be a serious clean up in Aisle 5. Money is being wasted, spent in a manner that is benefitting the very few. Money needs to be spent effectively to target the areas of society that needs to be fixed. Once we clean up the trough we WILL have the money to aim at those targets. So, what are the targets? With my background in the criminal justice system, I can tell you that the first place to start is taking the streets back. Making it safe for the people once again.

Crime:
drugs
gangs
sex crimes
white collar fraud
political pandering

Drugs- It is time to do away with the War on Drugs. It’s been 25 years and there’s been no headway, in fact it is a lost cause. Locking someone up for mere possession of marijuana is a waste of money. It costs approx. $300/day to keep someone incarcerated. Mere possession of marijuana will become a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine. Instead of using tax dollars to house these people, money(fines) will be coming in. It’s time for a War on Drug Dealers. Nail the peddlers, hard drug users, those that ARE the menaces to the streets. It’s been said though that you lock one up and there are 10 ready to take his place. That is true now, that is the next target.

Gangs- These groups make it dangerous in American neighborhoods. Violence and drugs are the norm. Gang members get busted and they go to jail as celebrities, brothers in arms. The gang mentality continues inside and in many cases the GANGS run the jails. I will pour billions into the correctional system to turn free ranges into Segregation units. They will have NO TV. Just radio, newspapers and books. No contact to their fellow gang members. We WILL make it HARD time. This will make offenders think twice before they decide they want to resort to violence. Persons will be able to earn their way out of these units, not only by good behavior but by participating in educational programs(EP). In fact, EP’s will not only be available to ALL inmates, it will be encouraged. Knowledge equates to opportunity. Let’s give them the tools to NOT reoffend.

Sex crimes- The system now releases these offenders on a regular basis. The turnstiles move the air as fast as a fan. Harsh penalties are needed in dealing with these predators. I will pass legislation to provide greater protection to the women and children of America. 2 Strikes. Once a person is convicted of rape or pedophilia a second time, they will be designated as Predators and be permanently incarcerated.

White Collar Fraud- If a person steals $5000 they get a healthy jail sentence in a REAL jail. Steal $50,000,000 and if caught, get a light sentence in a country club. This money that they steal comes from you and me. We WILL make them accountable. Hard time for large crime. A CEO will be more apt to NOT take our money if they KNOW they are going to have to do the same time as blue collar offenders.

Political Pandering- No one is immune from the law. Bribes taken will be prosecuted the same as anyone else; see White Collar Crime. We WILL clean up this morass. Lobbyist take note, we are coming.

Environment:

Cleaner air is a target that HAS to be dealt with. Our reliance on fossil fuels needs to be adapted. Grants and tax incentive will be given to companies and persons that can come up with and implement alternative sources and systems to our reliance on oil. These incentives will also be given for R&D for auto makers that are willing to develop components that will make cars run cleaner. Much like the catalytic converter of the 70's.


Now the one you’ve been waiting for:

The War in Iraq- We’ve got a mess on our hands and it has to be cleaned up. A pull out now would be disastrous and irresponsible. What is needed is an exit strategy. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. What is needed here is MORE instructors. Not just to train police and soldiers but also train INSTRUCTORS, so that Iraqi’s can train themselves. Step up the amount and quality of the Iraqi defense forces. By doing this we will reduce the need of our sons and daughters in this nation. The target is to hand over enough of the load to Iraq that by the end of this Administrations first term, half of our troops will be back home. Full pullout is desirous but not practical. This will be a GREAT savings in life and money.

Partisan Politics:

The whole political process cares little about YOU, unless it’s election time. In fact it’s used to separate one American from the next. It’s time to bury partisan politics in favor of, not only bipartisan politics but multipartisan politics. Only when looking at ALL aspects of an issue can you find the most logical solution, one that is best for EVERYONE. We CAN do this together.

The Constitution.

As to the Constitution, it's been serving the American people well for over 2 centuries. Yes there have been some amendments, needed at their time, as America ages and evolves. The president can make NO changes to the Constitution, it is VERY difficult to do that as a nation, BUT the interpretation of it can be murky. The ONLY change I would make is to get back to the word and spirit of this document, what has been missing as of late. The president should be a servant of the Constitution(the people), not the other way around.

Thank you for taking the time to consider a better way of life for ALL Americans.

Edit: Syntax.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by intrepid]




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I'm 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?


And I don't mean would you change it, but what is your opinion on what
it should be.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Wow, I like your positions.

Since the announcement period is not yet over, I can't commit yet, but I'm sure you'll at least be on my short list!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Intrepid, where do I send my campaign contribution? I'm ready to go door-to-door soliciting votes for you. Too bad that this "election" is a mock election for ATS. With your platform, you should actually be running for the real thing! You've got my vote.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I'm 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?


I don't think age comes into play when it comes to leading a country, that is for the people to decide. I think it would be HIGHLY unlikely that a person even around the age of 35 would have the experience needed to be POTUS. Then again, as I said, let the people decide. In short, leave it alone.


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?


And I don't mean would you change it, but what is your opinion on what
it should be.


In the real world? Absolutely! The POTUS affects every American and most of the world.

In cyberspace? Nope. The ATS president will have NO impact on, well, anything really. The single American voter has more power than the person that will win this race.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Hi Intrepid .. I thought you were an Independent?? Anyways, here are the questions I'm asking everyone. I have deleted a few because you already answered them.


1 - Your stand on the rights of Americans to own and bear arms....

2 - Your stand on abortion laws ....

4 - Your economic platform ....

5 - Your stand on the 'death tax' .....

7 - Your stand on our security wall on the southern US border (and then on the Northern border?) ...

8 - Your stand on other security issues such as security in our ports etc ...

9 - Your stand on intelligence gathering within the USA in regards to terrorism and constitutional rights -

10 - Your VP and cabinet appointments?

12 - Your policy for foreign aid and 'forgiving debts' .....

13 - What federal funding, if any, would you put into medical research etc etc? Including FETAL stem cell use yes or no??

14 - Afghanistan? Your policy there ....

15 - Oil companies, pharmacuticals, etc etc? Any thoughts in that area as far as your administration goes?

16 - The United Nations .... Your policy and thoughts in regards to that and how your administration would deal with them??

17 - Amnesty for illegals or send them back (anchor babies and all)??

18 - NASA ... further funding, more funding, less funding, a complete change ??? What would you and your administration support in this area?

19 - ANWAR ... drill or not drill? Alaska's state right to drill (they want to) or will your administration forbid it due to the possibilty that the Refuge could be damaged in the future?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Hi Intrepid .. I thought you were an Independent?? Anyways, here are the questions I'm asking everyone. I have deleted a few because you already answered them.


1 - Your stand on the rights of Americans to own and bear arms....


Constitutional right, I wouldn't change it anymore than giving up my own firearms.


2 - Your stand on abortion laws ....


This is an issue for the Supreme Court, not the president.


4 - Your economic platform ....


Check out what I propose as NEAP. It is a program that keeps gov't accountable for money spent and the effectiveness of such. Saving instead of spending means lower taxes, thus stimulating the economy by giving the consumer greater spending power.


5 - Your stand on the 'death tax' .....


Personally I think it stinks but there are legal ways around it if taken properly. The Estate Tax is likely to go nowhere. Also this tax can be reaped at the State level and there would be a hullabaloo if attempting to interfere in a States collection policy.


7 - Your stand on our security wall on the southern US border (and then on the Northern border?) ...


You'll have to define "wall" as there are a couple of meanings here and I'd like to be accurate in answering you.


8 - Your stand on other security issues such as security in our ports etc ...


Very important. However I think that the job being done to date is not without merit. Let's make it better with NEAP.


9 - Your stand on intelligence gathering within the USA in regards to terrorism and constitutional rights -


I've got a BIG problem with this one. As you said, "constitutional rights", granted to ALL American. Most notably the 14th Amendment and the rights guaranteed within.


10 - Your VP and cabinet appointments?


You'll have to wait for this one, the process has just begun.


12 - Your policy for foreign aid and 'forgiving debts' .....


This is a tricky issue. Aid can be given so that other countries can Buy American, thus keeping people employed and the economy going. Not being an economist myself I would look at what they do say, and I'm sure I could come up with more than one here at ATS
and then make a logical decision on this issue.


13 - What federal funding, if any, would you put into medical research etc etc? Including FETAL stem cell use yes or no??


You know, I'm going to differ this question as it relates to question 15. However the answer is none.


14 - Afghanistan? Your policy there ....


Steady the course.


15 - Oil companies, pharmacuticals, etc etc? Any thoughts in that area as far as your administration goes?


STOP THE DAMN GOUGING! There's little you can do in a free marketplace to stop this though, other than tax them further but they would just pass that on to the consumer in the long run. This is why the medical companies get NO fedreal money, they've got plenty for R&D.


16 - The United Nations .... Your policy and thoughts in regards to that and how your administration would deal with them??


Well, we've seen how well antagonism has worked out on both sides. Maybe it's time for an olive branch and see if that works. If it doesn't then we take it from there.


17 - Amnesty for illegals or send them back (anchor babies and all)??


No amnesty and NO anchor babies. If a child is born here illegally should the child be considered American? I'll have more on this when you get back to me on question 7, as they are related.


18 - NASA ... further funding, more funding, less funding, a complete change ??? What would you and your administration support in this area?


Is further funding needed? Or is the money allocated need to be spent better? Again NEAP.


19 - ANWAR ... drill or not drill? Alaska's state right to drill (they want to) or will your administration forbid it due to the possibilty that the Refuge could be damaged in the future?



I'll have to get back to you on this one as there are many issues that are VERY complicated, State rights vs Federal rights, the environment, etc.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Intrepid, what are your thoughts on Fairtax? A simple idea that effects many things, including immigration which you briefly touched on. Perhaps we wouldn't need the southern "wall" at all with fairtax in place.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
Intrepid, what are your thoughts on Fairtax? A simple idea that effects many things, including immigration which you briefly touched on. Perhaps we wouldn't need the southern "wall" at all with fairtax in place.


The Fair Tax is one thing that it isn't. It limits spending and stifles the economy. Our friends to the North have been dealing with this under the Goods and Services Tax and it hasn't helped their economy at all.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

19 - ANWAR ... drill or not drill? Alaska's state right to drill (they want to) or will your administration forbid it due to the possibilty that the Refuge could be damaged in the future?

I'll have to get back to you on this one as there are many issues that are VERY complicated, State rights vs Federal rights, the environment, etc.

I want to ask a question, please.

If you were elected President and you decided that ANWAR would be a good place to drill for oil, how would you deal with your friendly neighbours to the north in regards to the 1987 treaty?

If you decide that ANWAR isn't in your Presidential plans, then you can ignore my question.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey

Originally posted by intrepid

19 - ANWAR ... drill or not drill? Alaska's state right to drill (they want to) or will your administration forbid it due to the possibilty that the Refuge could be damaged in the future?

I'll have to get back to you on this one as there are many issues that are VERY complicated, State rights vs Federal rights, the environment, etc.

I want to ask a question, please.

If you were elected President and you decided that ANWAR would be a good place to drill for oil, how would you deal with your friendly neighbours to the north in regards to the 1987 treaty?

If you decide that ANWAR isn't in your Presidential plans, then you can ignore my question.


Speaking as Intrepid's running mate, the issue of drilling in ANWAR is something to be considered carefully. In the long term, it's only a temporary patch for the energy problem, and we run into the issue of "when ANWAR is exhausted, what then?"

It can't last forever. At best it's just a patch.

But our platform involves empowering the people through education, and that means educating ourselves as consumers and citizens to look for long term solutions and not short-term patches. Pumping money into Research and Development (R&D) is a priority.

Where should the money come from? Congress has gotten out of hand with pork barrel projects -- almost 14,000 (fourteen thousand) of these sucked money out of our budget in 2005 and it's worse today:
www.cato.org...

Special interests do not need to be fed that much money.

The Citizens Against Government Waste have a "pig book" that tracks projects that are overbudget and overextended. Speaking as someone with experience in research, if they can't come up with the answer within budget and within time, their funding should be chopped and they should be forced to reapply for funding... with the red flag that they failed to produce results within expected time and budget:
www.cagw.org...

Let the money instead feed energy research and efficient technology research (making fuel cells more efficient and lighter in weight, for example.) Let's direct our intelligence to REALLY solving the project instead of appling temporary bandaids to the problem.

ANWAR won't become an issue if we focus on answers instead.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
You'll have to define "wall" as there are a couple of meanings here and I'd like to be accurate in answering you.


Okay.

A wall. A real security wall. Some have called for a fence. A wall and militarize the border. What is your stand on 'the wall'.

If no wall what are your thoughts on border security.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I hadn't realized that Byrd was Intrepid's running mate. The Intrepid/Byrd ticket should be unbeatable (provided that folks here at ATS don't blindly vote according to party lines).

I have always admired Intrepid's clear thinking. I have always found that Intrepid has been able to condense long, complicated issues to the essence and to make statements that, invariably, make sense -- just the sort of thinking that is required at this time and, frankly, any time.

Byrd's association on this ticket makes this a most viable contender. I have come to view Byrd as the "voice of reason" in a most unreasonable world. Like Intrepid, Byrd is certainly not one to mince words and I can only add my support for this ticket.

Personalities aside, the Libertarian platform that this ticket stands on speaks for itself. The Libertarians stand for reason, independence and personal responsibility in an age and environment that has promoted anything but these most desirable and lofty societal attributes.

I endorse
this ticket.


[This endorsement for the Intrepid/Byrd ticket is wholly independent and offered without any affiliation to the Intrepid/Byrd campaign']



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
It can't last forever. At best it's just a patch.


Nothing lasts forever.

It may be a 'patch', but it could be very useful while we turn to alternative energy sources. But the real issue with this is that Alaskans want to drill but people (outside of Alaska) don't want them to because of potential impact to the environment.

Should Alaskans be allowed to drill in their own state or do the environmentalists from the lower 48 get to tell the Alaskans they can't drill because there may be a remote possibility of environmental impact.

Who decides ANWAR? Alaskans or environmentalists?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by intrepid
You'll have to define "wall" as there are a couple of meanings here and I'd like to be accurate in answering you.


Okay.

A wall. A real security wall. Some have called for a fence. A wall and militarize the border. What is your stand on 'the wall'.


Cool, thanks for the clarification. No, a wall is not economically viable(huge amount of border to cover) and even if it were it wouldn't work. Too much coastline. "If you build it, they still will come."


If no wall what are your thoughts on border security.


To the south I'm assuming you mean illegal immigrants(II). The problem here is the employer. HEAVY fines for hiring II. If you can't make a business run inside the confines of the law, too bad.

As to the north I'm assuming you mean possible terrorist. I've read what Homeland Security has done. I've read what the RCMP has done. I'm sure other agencies have input as well. A better sharing of information and collaborative effort will be a better solution than a "wall".



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Byrd
It can't last forever. At best it's just a patch.


Nothing lasts forever.

It may be a 'patch', but it could be very useful while we turn to alternative energy sources. But the real issue with this is that Alaskans want to drill but people (outside of Alaska) don't want them to because of potential impact to the environment.

Actually, that's not quite true. While a majority of Alaskans (Caucasian, urban dwellers, trade unions) are in support of it, the people whose tribal lands this encompasses (relatively few in number and Native American) do not support it. The Alaska Inter-tribal Council is firmly against it. Although these are national parklands, the economic resources (wildlife) there are important to the Inuit and Inupiat.
en.wikipedia.org...


Who decides ANWAR? Alaskans or environmentalists?

As you see, the issue is not quite so black-and-white. The deeper issue is "who controls the land -- the individual or the state?" I favor individual rights.

We already have a number of in-place solutions that need to get kicked into high gear: gasohol and biodiesel. Minnesota began production of biodiesel in 2005 and has passed regulation saying that only gasohol (and not gasoline) may be sold in the state:
news.minnesota.publicradio.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, if Minnesota can do this, why can't the rest of the United States? Biodiesel and gasahol production can be bumped up in far less time than it would take to create roads and build a pipeline. And, speaking as a Texan who's seen a lot of drilling, not all oil wells produce oil. The ANWAR plan is based on a "every time a gusher" scenario and doesn't take into account that a lot of times even in a known vast oil field, My husband was a "roustabout" www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com... in Midland, Texas when he was young, and he said it was not unusual for a well to come up dry. For "wildcat" drillers, the failure rate could be as high as 80%.

In a known field (like our Permian Basin, where there's already a lot of wells and they're drilling in spots between the wells), 80%-95% of the holes that an experienced company drills will be productive.
www.investor.reuters.wallst.com...

But, before you get to that point, you have to drill exploratory wells and the success rate is not that high. One Australian government report shows 4 "hits" for every 10 wells drilled.
www.ga.gov.au...

And, of course, that means roads and trucks and all the other things that the tribes of the area and the environmentalists don't want and years of devlopment and construction time just to bring the oil here.

And then there's the question of which companies get to drill there. I can see a lot of potential for abuse in answering that question.

I'm all for encouraging other states to follow the example set by Minnesota and for offering tax incentives for the purchase of more efficient vehicles. Let's move technology forward, rather than continuing our current wasteful habits!

[edit on 2-3-2007 by Byrd]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
I endorse
this ticket.


[This endorsement for the Intrepid/Byrd ticket is wholly independent and offered without any affiliation to the Intrepid/Byrd campaign']


Thanks! It should be quite an interesting race. I'm learning a LOT about political issues.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Quite an interesting duo.

I am wondering, and before I say this, let me say I could honestly care
less about it, how long it will be before someone says something about
you both being mods, and having a problem with it.

Anyways, best of luck on the campaign trail.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Dang running against a MOD...

Best of luck Intrepid! Glad to see another Libertarian.

However I don't like your stance on drugs. Do we not already target dealers? So it will be arrest dealers and not users, what about Meth, often made in houses, and is growing among suburban middle class white women? What about coke? Can I bust out a line of coke in a bus stop and get high, so long as I am not dealing? And pills? Anti-pain medication? Morphine? Who will pay the price when people in their liberty of doing drugs begin to break down and end up in hospitals? Who will pay? A libertarian surely wouldn't put that on the tax payer? What about social and cultural degeneration? The effects of an unstable population will hurt the country, as it is already? What about the increase in crime - people stealing to buy coke, who can do it at will because its not ilegal to do it anymore?

How about this as a drug policy .. attack the countries that support the drug lords and assist in transporting the drugs into our country? Is that not an act of war? Hit columbia, Mexico, and where we see the planting and refineing taking place?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Intrepid, on Iraq, you say that we need more trainers. I think most would agree, this is a great plan.

What do you feel needs to be done beyond that? The bush administrations strategy seems to be to simply have troops present, and have them fight insurgents when they pop up. Many other people have suggested that we shoudl rather be using an (aptly yclept) "Oilspot" strategy. This is where we establish centres of stability, in key cities or key locations, and then slowly spread control out from the as time progresses, like an expanding oil spot, until they merge (or conceivably, until it becomes clear that the iraqi regulars can complete that task).


So what do you see as being the alternative to what Bush is doing, beyond trainers, which are vital of course and underrecognized in the government?



Grants and tax incentive will be given to companies and persons that can come up with and implement alternative sources and systems to our reliance on oil.

Why haven't you rather opted for co2 emission limits or mile per gallon standards, or do you seem them as also figuring into it?


However the answer is none

No federal funding for medical research, pharmaceuticals, etc? What about basic exploratory science in those fields? I can see the logic behind not giving federal funding to glaxo-kline-smith et al, but what about the independenat researchers and developers, whom often do the start up work on many medical advances and then sell them, if they get a succesful product, to the pharmaceutical companies? Surely they should still be able to apply for grants and funding, or have I misunderstood you?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join