Candidate Declaration: Intrepid, Libertarian., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 3-3-2007 @ 06:10 PM by intrepid
Originally posted by Rockpuck
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?


Whoa, I don't know where you got this from. I was talking about not jailing people that were in simple possession of marijuana. The most used illegal drug out there.

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?


Yeah, that's been working for the last 25 years. At what cost to the American people.


reply posted on 3-3-2007 @ 06:30 PM by intrepid
Originally posted by Nygdan
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?


I like the oilspot scenario but the problem with that is that it is difficult to achieve in a place like Iraq. The combatants aren't always readily visible, thus stability in any given area is difficult to achieve.. The key here is to get Iraq to handle it's own destiny and the only way to do that is aggressive training so that they can do it themselves.


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?


Co2 emissions does figure into it but MPG standards don't. There are plenty of vehicles out there that give excellent mileage but you still see Hummers on the highways. You can't legislate what people want to buy.

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?


Many researchers now get endowments from the private sector or universities. Let them fight it out as to who gets the funding. Capitalism, gotta love it. I don't see it as the responsibility of the government to fund research, there's better places where money can be spent.


reply posted on 3-3-2007 @ 08:45 PM by Rockpuck
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Why is the bible in a courtroom ok and a monument of the ten commandments out side of the court room not? Does that not become a contradiction in its self?


Is a bible a monument?

What about "under god" in the constitution?


Are you saying we should change the contitution to remove a couple of words? Well, I'm not in favor of that.

Flags in the class room? Saying the pledge in the class room?


No problem here, not only are those NOT monuments AGAIN, they aren't religious.

What are some of your running mates personal political views and or agenda? She has not said to much?


I'll leave that to Byrd, she's MORE than capable to handle this.

Next?


What’s the difference between a book and a monument? Actually .. when you think about it.. you don't swear anything on a monument, but you do on the book. interesting stance, it would more appear as if your trying to please two sides at once instead of actually attacking the issue at hand. Maybe that’s just my opinion.

I meant in the pledge of allegiance, my apologies, however God is clearly stated in the constitution, and our entire system built on Judeo/Christian beliefs. Should under God be taken out of the pledge? If not, why do you find it ok for us to use the Bible in the court room, say Under God in the pledge but not ok for monuments. Do you have something against monuments?

The flag is not religious, I never said that the flag was so I honestly have no idea what your talking about? However, it is a social issue raised in the past - should kids pledge allegiance to the flag in the class room? And your comments on that would be?

And again, what’s with your apparent hatred for monuments?


What is your stance on the North American Union?


[edit on 3/3/2007 by Rockpuck]


reply posted on 4-3-2007 @ 12:02 AM by Byrd
Originally posted by Rockpuck
I meant in the pledge of allegiance, my apologies, however God is clearly stated in the constitution,

Would you care to show me where? I'm studying US government documents this semester and I linked to the Constitution. I don't see ANY deity mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

and our entire system built on Judeo/Christian beliefs.

Actually, it isn't. The model is the Iroquois confedracy, a true democracy that had been flourishing for over 400 years before the Europeans arrived. Franklin first heard about it in 1746 or so and began promoting it to other colonial representatives as the ONLY viable alternative to the then-Judaeo/Christian mode of rule: the rule of the monarch/king as God's representative on Earth.

Should under God be taken out of the pledge?

This is a social issue... and I remember having to RElearn the pledge when it was changed to include "under God" in the 1950's. This is not an issue for a President to decide. It is an issue for the people.

If not, why do you find it ok for us to use the Bible in the court room, say Under God in the pledge but not ok for monuments. Do you have something against monuments?

Nope. I propose that we leave the 10 commandments and next to them put up monuments with the laws of AmerInd tribes AND the Wiccan Rede and the Santaria laws AND the Catholic version of the 10 Commandments (different than the Protestant) AND the Muslim laws and the laws of every other religious/cultural group right next to them.

I will not support having ONLY Christian monuments on government ground.

The flag ... is a social issue raised in the past - should kids pledge allegiance to the flag in the class room? And your comments on that would be?


That these tend to be push-button issues on matters that candidates cannot actually influence. Are you familiar with the history of the Pledge? Are you aware that it was written by a Socialist party member as part of a marketing campaign? I realize it's become a cultural icon among some people, but it was not something handed down by the Founding Fathers.
en.wikipedia.org...

Historically, "loyalty oaths" have been used to deny rights to people during times of strife in a country. It had been used against the Founding Fathers... and some of their cronies used it against others here in America. Thomas Penn, in 1756, used a loyatly oath to strip power from the Quakers (who would not swear loaylty to any human agency.) You may not remember the Communist "witch hunts" of the McCarthy era, but I certainly do.

In light of the abuse, the Supreme Court has ruled that people can't be compelled to say the Pledge. I agree.

What is your stance on the North American Union?

Unlike many people offering opinions on this, I have actually read the Commission's report. I will be happy to discuss the document if you will point out specific paragraphs or recommendations that you'd like to ask me about.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by Byrd]


reply posted on 4-3-2007 @ 12:24 AM by Byrd
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Ah, just thought of another question for ya Intrepid (and Byrd) .. in your drug stance you stated my question was apparently irrelevant to your view because you where talking about marijuana only... but you would keep the same tough laws for other drugs?

I think you may be getting the powers of the various branches of the government confused. Drug laws are an issue of the Department of Justice. They can niether be made nor recommended by the Executive branch (which would be the President.)

The President does influence this to some extent by appointing the Attorney General and other positions, many of which have to be approved by Congress.

You never clarified. Would you keep the laws the same on Coke, Meth, pill abuse.. ect. and allow marijuana to be legal, or would they all be legal? .. Do you have a personal liking towards marijuana?

These are states rights issues.

None of these issues are within the provenance of presidential policy. I don't believe the states (which make most of these policies) would be very happy about a President who stepped in and, in direct violation of the Constitution, took away their rights.

You seem to take a rather simple view of the drug situation, when in fact it's a very complex one that involves states rights, international laws, and national laws. There are clear lines of demarcation in who has the right to do what and who influences what.

This is an issue that belongs to the people. We will not overstep Constitutional boundaries and take away the people's right to decide.


reply posted on 4-3-2007 @ 04:22 PM by Rockpuck
BYRD:

Would you care to show me where? I'm studying US government documents this semester and I linked to the Constitution. I don't see ANY deity mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

The natural rights of ever being are granted by God. God is mentioned several times in the constitution, preamble, declaration of independance, bill of rights, the entire set of documents.


Actually, it isn't. The model is the Iroquois confedracy, a true democracy that had been flourishing for over 400 years before the Europeans arrived. Franklin first heard about it in 1746 or so and began promoting it to other colonial representatives as the ONLY viable alternative to the then-Judaeo/Christian mode of rule: the rule of the monarch/king as God's representative on Earth.

I believe you are apparently confused in my statement. Our laws, history and much more are based on Judeo / Christian beliefs. The Iroquois confederation was an example used on how to establish the pysical layout of the Republic and an efficient way to govern the many state Union. Our laws, constitution, or anything else is based upon the Indian nation.


This is a social issue... and I remember having to RElearn the pledge when it was changed to include "under God" in the 1950's. This is not an issue for a President to decide. It is an issue for the people.


You where alive in the 1950's? What do you currently study in school? Any ways, it is a decision for the President if it where to be banned in congress? .. Why fret away from social issues?


Nope. I propose that we leave the 10 commandments and next to them put up monuments with the laws of AmerInd tribes AND the Wiccan Rede and the Santaria laws AND the Catholic version of the 10 Commandments (different than the Protestant) AND the Muslim laws and the laws of every other religious/cultural group right next to them.

I will not support having ONLY Christian monuments on government ground.

What a bland and politically correct statement. *yawns* .. it was a yes or no question, you went the long way to say no apparently.


You think the Pledge strips powers away from the people?



Unlike many people offering opinions on this, I have actually read the Commission's report. I will be happy to discuss the document if you will point out specific paragraphs or recommendations that you'd like to ask me about.


Yeah. Il try again. Your opinion on the NAU?



I think you may be getting the powers of the various branches of the government confused. Drug laws are an issue of the Department of Justice. They can niether be made nor recommended by the Executive branch (which would be the President.)

The President does influence this to some extent by appointing the Attorney General and other positions, many of which have to be approved by Congress.


What the hell? Really? Wow. The President can Veto a bil that comes before him, or pass. If drugs where legalized it would require a law. The Justice Department can make policies, not laws.



These are states rights issues.

None of these issues are within the provenance of presidential policy. I don't believe the states (which make most of these policies) would be very happy about a President who stepped in and, in direct violation of the Constitution, took away their rights.

You seem to take a rather simple view of the drug situation, when in fact it's a very complex one that involves states rights, international laws, and national laws. There are clear lines of demarcation in who has the right to do what and who influences what.

This is an issue that belongs to the people. We will not overstep Constitutional boundaries and take away the people's right to decide.



This is what I get out of that: If the majority of the people are addicted to Coke it can be legal.

Oh, and it is a rather black and white picture you see.. as drugs are either legal or not. How is it any different then that?

INTREPID:

Aside from what Byrd has already mentioned, I was pretty clear on the issue of NOT jailing for simple possession of marijuana. Why? To start with, it hasn't been curbed, it's the most prevalent and as I pointed out, it costs approx $300/day to incarcerate someone. Other drugs would continue to be charged. Also vehicular users will continue to be charged.

Now, WHERE did I say weed would be legal? You might want to reread what I wrote.


Umm lets see.. marijuana should be legal, right I got that much, however I asked about other drugs which you skated rather well completely around the issue. Meth, Coke, Pills, ect. Legal or not?



Only where it can save me billions in tax dollars saved.

As Byrd pointed out, this isn't solely the purview of the President but this is what I would work towards.



Social side effects matter little if it saves you money.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^