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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Rockpuck,

I think you should concentrate on your own announcement thread rather than intrepid's.

If there's a structured debate forum later on, than that's fine, but it seems to me you're just trolling your opponent's thread now.

This happened to me when I was running for ATSNN councilor and I can tell you it's not a pleasant thing to have happen to you, and is propbably the main reason I've decided not to try to get elected for anything else on ATS again.




posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I am terribly sorry to cause you discomfort Intrepid (and BYRD) - there was no rule stateing I was not allowed to ask other candidates questions? Maybe I missed that point some where.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.

As I've said before, the constitution doesn't mention deities. My link that I left for you may not have worked, so I am linking to it again:
www.archives.gov...

Likewise there's nothing in the Bill of Rights. Let me link that so you can verify it for yourself:
usinfo.state.gov...

Or in the preamble:

the full text of the preamble:
The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No deities. The basis of our laws is not a religion, but rather a sense of rejection of the English "King as god's representative, king can do no wrong" system that so many suffered from for so long.


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.


Our laws are based on the English legal system, our method of structuring the democracy and electing representatives is based on the Iroquois. If you'll compare the Biblical laws (that would be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) and the laws enacted by Congress as well as the laws enacted by your state, I think you won't find much similarity.




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?

Yes, I was alive in the 1950's... and I'm not the oldest member here, not by a long shot. I'm studying Library & Information Science ... have a course in government documents this semester.

This is actually NOT an issue for the President. It really is an issue for Congress. I get quite tired of politicians making all sorts of rosy promises, knowing they can't be held to them because the real power to make or umake those decisions is in the hands of Congress.

So, for this mock election, I want to stick to issues that I can directly affect.


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

Nope. It's a sincere representation of my beliefs. Either have them all or have none of them.


You think the Pledge strips powers away from the people?

Mandated pledges have always been used as "loyalty tests", often flunking people who are loyal but who refuse to take the oath. The Quakers are a good case in point.



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

There isn't a North American Union, nor is there any legislation to start one. Until I see legislation proposed, I'm not going to have an opinion.


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.

Well, you could change the question to "If the Congress enacted and passed a law to legalize (whatever)..." but your question implied presidential powers and drug enforcement. And the Justice Department sets penalties... not the President.


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

This country IS based on the rule of the majority, isn't it? Frankly, if the majority of the country were coke addicted and wanted it legalized and the Congress was also coke addicted and agreed it should be legalized, there's nothing a President or Vice President can do. A veto would be overridden by a 2/3 majority vote in Congress.

The President/Vice President isn't a king or a dictator. It is the will of the people and not the will of the one. That's our law.

Remember: The Libertarian party is dedicated to returning power to the People. If the President and Vice president are too busy enacting their own belief agendas and not listening to the people, then they're just runnign the same old stuff that we got from all the other politicians.

Me, I want to hear what the people say.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Byrd]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I am terribly sorry to cause you discomfort Intrepid (and BYRD) - there was no rule stateing I was not allowed to ask other candidates questions? Maybe I missed that point some where.


I have no problem with it personally -- as long as you remain polite.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

As a woman?

I can bring the same thing any man can, and on 30% less muscle mass and with a lower dose of testosterone.


And we get to pay her less money too. Now that's a sound economic policy.




I think that people are ready for a good and efficient government. When we stop considering race, gender, family background, religion, musical ability, and celebrity status and start focusing on who's not afraid to take stances and who's not afraid to start suggesting real and workable answers, we will get good government.


Ahhh, [e]utopia.... if only.



Jus' foolin'... Ya'll need a motto. The Intrepid/Byrd platform - bumpersticker version. How about:

Defy Ignorance, vote Intrepid/Byrd '07?



PS-

Who doesn't want an old hippie chick/scientist as VP?... The thought of it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up (in a good way
)


PPS-

You guys figure on having any luck with Congress? Any ideas on how to bring Dems and Reps together behind a Libertarian platform/philosophy?



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Originally posted by Byrd

As a woman?

I can bring the same thing any man can, and on 30% less muscle mass and with a lower dose of testosterone.


And we get to pay her less money too. Now that's a sound economic policy.

EEEEEEK!!!!! hisssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!



Jus' foolin'... Ya'll need a motto. The Intrepid/Byrd platform - bumpersticker version. How about:

Defy Ignorance, vote Intrepid/Byrd '07?


I *LOVE* it!!!! Will add that to my sigfile! You're brilliant!!!


Who doesn't want an old hippie chick/scientist as VP?... The thought of it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up (in a good way
)

hee!!



You guys figure on having any luck with Congress? Any ideas on how to bring Dems and Reps together behind a Libertarian platform/philosophy?

Actually, I do. I want to do a little more research on it before making a recommendation to Intrepid, but consider this factoid:

The Executive branch established the Government Printing Office to print official government documents. Each branch has things that it submits to publication and the publications are released to Federal Deposit Libraries (each Congressional district has one). Many of these are also made available on government sites if you know where to look.

Here's what the Executive branch publishes:
www.gpoaccess.gov...

The Executive branch can establish a factfinding committees and have them publish reports. This may seem like a trivial thing, but it has the ability to sway public opinion. I'm still doing research so I'll hold off on a full statement here, but information is power and can be used to direct or block.


(Isn't this government documents course I'm taking delightfully WICKED?)

I'd like to establish a number of these factfinding commissions... perhaps starting with one that documents who's junketing on what lobby.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I'd like to establish a number of these factfinding commissions... perhaps starting with one that documents who's junketing on what lobby.


This would immediately get the green light. In line with our platform to clean up Washington.


As to the slogan, what's wrong with:

Say NO to the STATUS QUO

Just saying.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
EEEEEEK!!!!! hisssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!


So I guess you wouldn't be interested in, instead of VP, a position of Head of Sewing Notions and What-Not [HSNWN]? Not sure if that's cabinet level or not but I believe intrepid, were he elected, could make that happen for ya... sweetheart.

*untangles his chest hair from his numerous gold chains*

and

*ducks*




You're brilliant!!!


Indeed; also really, really good looking and humble, never forget humble.







Here's what the Executive branch publishes:
www.gpoaccess.gov...

[...]

The Executive branch can establish a factfinding committees and have them publish reports. This may seem like a trivial thing, but it has the ability to sway public opinion. I'm still doing research so I'll hold off on a full statement here, but information is power and can be used to direct or block.


(Isn't this government documents course I'm taking delightfully WICKED?)


Interesting. Is that class something political science majors usually take. Why, if you don't mind, are you taking it?





Originally posted by intrepid
As to the slogan, what's wrong with:

Say NO to the STATUS QUO

Just saying.


Are we dropping the 'Rren's brilliant meme' already! Dang it, the tee-shirts are already being printed up.



Dumb question: Where's the libertarian on the political/ideological spectrum (right, left or center)? Seems to me its conservative wrt to goverment power/size and liberal wrt social issues, is that acurrate? If so, I would think the vast majority of americans could get behind it and perhaps that's that direction/argumentaion to take wrt taking the centrist/independant voters imo.


On a side-note: Now that we have a power house (intrepid/Byrd) ticket for the Libs I'm curious to see how the opposing parties counter. I think if we get a Nerdling/vagabond dem ticket you guys could get a run for your money. What a great debate that would be! As a Dem myself I'd be in a real pickle choosing between those two tickets.

This looks to be building up to quite an interesting election.... the greater of two goods. Now that's how an election should be.

Good luck guys!



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   
can I be your vice because seriously you are a genious and easily get my vote and I am a libertarian as well


df1

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I'd like to establish a number of these factfinding commissions...

Creating additional government bureaucracies with more government employees sounds completely inconsistent with the core libertarian ideal of smaller government. In fact it sounds like just more of the same manure that the Demopublicans are selling to voters.

Why should libertarian voters cast their ballot for your ticket when it seems that all they will get is more of the same government expansion? I'd imagine most libertarians have the expectation that an elected LP President would reduce the size the government.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Byrd
I'd like to establish a number of these factfinding commissions...

Creating additional government bureaucracies with more government employees sounds completely inconsistent with the core libertarian ideal of smaller government. In fact it sounds like just more of the same manure that the Demopublicans are selling to voters.

Ah, but you see, it's completely within my powers as Vice President. I'm not running around trying to pretend I can get legislation enacted or lay down laws or decide court cases.

As Vice President, I can certainly propose or call on CongressCritters and encourage them to vote, but I'm not going to pretend I can strongarm them into anything. I can, however, investigate and publish what I find. I can use the power of the investigation to advise my President and to whack the Congress with, if need be.

Nor did I say I was going to form a bureau and hire them.


Why should libertarian voters cast their ballot for your ticket when it seems that all they will get is more of the same government expansion? I'd imagine most libertarians have the expectation that an elected LP President would reduce the size the government.


It can be reduced in many areas once you know WHERE the problems are and where the waste is and where the inefficiency is. But you can't do that by waving an ouija board planchette over the government structure and seeing what gets spelled out. You have to have a good analysis of things, and that means being sure you have people who can research, grab the data, and analyze.

But you can't just go in and chop stuff just because you think it's a waste of time. Your own personal opinions could lead you to axe something that was actually beneficial to a lot of people.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Originally posted by Byrd
EEEEEEK!!!!! hisssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!


So I guess you wouldn't be interested in, instead of VP, a position of Head of Sewing Notions and What-Not [HSNWN]? Not sure if that's cabinet level or not but I believe intrepid, were he elected, could make that happen for ya... sweetheart.

*untangles his chest hair from his numerous gold chains*

and

*ducks*

WHAP!WHAP!WHAP!WHAP!!!!WHAP!WHAP!WHAP!WHAP!!!!





You're brilliant!!!


Indeed; also really, really good looking and humble, never forget humble.

I can tell.





Interesting. Is that class something political science majors usually take. Why, if you don't mind, are you taking it?

Nope. it's a class for librarians. Librarians are the most evil-minded, anarchistic, information junkies you'd ever hope to meet. Truly.

Levity aside, I'm staggered at how much work the program is. I'm in the School of library and information Science, so it's part of my degree.


df1

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Ah, but you see, it's completely within my powers as Vice President. I'm not running around trying to pretend I can get legislation enacted or lay down laws or decide court cases.

Oh I see, you are creating a modest little fiefdom for the VP so that you have something to keep you busy, as opposed to the current VP that thinks he is President. Perhaps you can discover a hobby in your tenure as VP like Al Gore did with global warming, which you can later turn into a career.



Nor did I say I was going to form a bureau and hire them.

Use whatever semantics you prefer to describe this government expansion that you say is not a bureau. Will these people that your not going to hire be working for free? Not receiving any pay will surely limit the talent pool signing up to participate in this non-bureau of yours to the wealthy, pretty much like the Demopublicans.

What should we call your new bureaucracy that is not a bureau and hires no employees? A collective perhaps?



you can't do that by waving an ouija board planchette over the government structure and seeing what gets spelled out.

Ross Perot talked about the vast number of untried economic plans sitting in government archives and he remarked that it was unfortunate that nobody has tried any of these plans. My guess is that those same archives already have this data without any need for Miss Cleo to conjure up data, read chicken entrails or use your quija board. Not using the archival data we already have would be an unfortunate waste as would not using the new data that government adds to the pile on a daily basis.

Is their some additional data your administration will require to perform it's voodoo which is not already being collected by the government?



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Byrd
Ah, but you see, it's completely within my powers as Vice President. I'm not running around trying to pretend I can get legislation enacted or lay down laws or decide court cases.

Oh I see, you are creating a modest little fiefdom for the VP so that you have something to keep you busy, as opposed to the current VP that thinks he is President. Perhaps you can discover a hobby in your tenure as VP like Al Gore did with global warming, which you can later turn into a career.

You're right -- I intend to NOT usurp the power of my Presidential running mate. We have specific powers and actions that are outlined in the Constitution. Intrepid and I agree that anyone who intends to uphold the Constitution ***MUST*** operate within the limits of what the Constitution says.

We have had a history of Presidents who overstepped their powers. Each stomp outside the limits has taken away more freedom from the American people.

I see no problem with retired politicians supporting a cause. Jimmy Carter has done much for the poor and disadvantaged people of the world, Lady Bird Johnson did a lot for the envrionment and the historical preservation of Texas. Most past presidents agreed to lend their name to a cause or two, but for the most part sat back or traveled to the rest of the world, practicing being famous.

I'm a Do-Something person. Frankly, sitting back and being a figurehead after my term in office has little appeal. There's a lot of issues that a private citizen with a modest amount of wealth can address... from creating foundations to help disabled veterans (like this one, which is actually a cause dear to my heart in real life: www.segs4vets.org... ) .

I don't see promoting that over other issues, but if you look for me after the elections you won't find me sitting with important people and sipping cocktails. Look for me swinging a hammer or handling a shovel or getting 'hands on' to assess a problem and help other citizens do something about it.

And by the way, I'm a rather avid environmentalist.



Use whatever semantics you prefer to describe this government expansion that you say is not a bureau. Will these people that your not going to hire be working for free? Not receiving any pay will surely limit the talent pool signing up to participate in this non-bureau of yours to the wealthy, pretty much like the Demopublicans.


There's a difference between a bureau and a committee. Bureaus are long-term structures within the government. Committees are temporary structures. I have no power to set up a bureau (we have enough) and frankly more of them would just add to the red tape.

They're also small, and easily governed.


Ross Perot talked about the vast number of untried economic plans sitting in government archives and he remarked that it was unfortunate that nobody has tried any of these plans. My guess is that those same archives already have this data without any need for Miss Cleo to conjure up data, read chicken entrails or use your quija board.

Some of it is there, but it may not be current. And some of it, frankly, was carefully crafted information that supported the political party in power at the time.

Historical data is valuable, but you have to know the biases of the source. You can't just accept them wholesale... and you can't asume that things have stayed the same since the last time the report was done.


Is their some additional data your administration will require to perform it's voodoo which is not already being collected by the government?

Actually, I'll hire some data catalog and retrieval experts and some statisticians as well as a financial analyst. Cheney currently has about 80 members on his personal staff ( www.tpmmuckraker.com... ) -- I'm confident I can get away with fewer "personal assistants." I'm pretty sure the list doesn't include mail clerks, file clerks, and typists.

Unlike Cheny, I'll also be certain that my staff is listed in the Plum Book. www.gpoaccess.gov...



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uisge Baugh
can I be your vice because seriously you are a genious and easily get my vote and I am a libertarian as well


I'm sorry but Byrd is my running mate.

Genious? Not at all. Logic without a hidden agenda, that's all.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Byrd
I'd like to establish a number of these factfinding commissions...

Creating additional government bureaucracies with more government employees sounds completely inconsistent with the core libertarian ideal of smaller government. In fact it sounds like just more of the same manure that the Demopublicans are selling to voters.


Do you mean like this?




Why should libertarian voters cast their ballot for your ticket when it seems that all they will get is more of the same government expansion? I'd imagine most libertarians have the expectation that an elected LP President would reduce the size the government.


Exactly. And where better to start than with a part of the government, unofficial as it is, lobbyists? You say it's the same as the Demopublicans? What are THEY doing to reduce this influence in the government? I say this is a good place to start reducing the size of government.

Edit: Fixed BB code.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Looking through the list of candidates, I see a few "front runners". Only my opinion of course, but I see the intrepid/Byrd card as a tough one. Some interesting debates in our near future I believe.

I am asking most of the candidates this, and if possible, I look forward to a reply from both of you.

In one sentence, Why should I vote for you?




posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
I am asking most of the candidates this, and if possible, I look forward to a reply from both of you.

In one sentence, Why should I vote for you?



Our platform is to make government effective and accountable to all Americans.

Thanks, now I get a 1 liner.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Intrepid/Byrd,

Your platform and answers to other posters questions sound like they really could work in our US Government.

Admitted, I have not read all of the candidates platforms yet. Some of those that I have read sound like "pie in the sky" wants and desires. Or perhaps go beyond what reality could produce. I do believe their goals are good, but the means to reach them are not.

I would like your opinions on term limits for Congress and what criteria would you use to appoint Supreme Court Judges?

Say No to the Status Quo!



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
I would like your opinions on term limits for Congress...


This is not possible, nor a good policy imo. You would have to get the members of Congress to basically cut their own throats, that's not going to happen. Also once you've implemented this you are taking the choice out of the peoples hands. Don't like your congressman, vote him out.


...and what criteria would you use to appoint Supreme Court Judges?


QUALIFIED people that have demonstrated non partisan judgement. They must also be constitutionally aware and demonstrate that they will keep to the document.


Say No to the Status Quo!


Indeed.


Edit: Syntax.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by intrepid]




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join